During the Covid pandemic, I was listening to my local news when a teaser for the national news came on broadcasting:
“Teachers and school nurses quit rather than return to school.”
The next commercial that came on was from my local power company showing men going to work and taking safety precautions for Covid-19 because they have to be out there. Their work is essential. They have to get it done.
The contrast between the two commercials was stark.
Women saying, “We can’t, we can’t” accompanied by signs saying, “I don’t want to die.”
While men whose work is inherently dangerous and where they can die just from doing their tasks say, “We can and we will.”
The contrast is an immediate reminder of the stereotypes.
Men are brave, daring, risk takers who get things done. While women who are caring and compassionate are driven by emotion. Our emotions make us weak and fearful, leading us to become irrational and hysterical.
The media then reinforces the stereotype of women being overly dramatic with stories of mothers who are afraid to send their children back to school for fear they might “get sick” (with no symptoms) or become “transmitters” (nice way of saying “silent killers.”)
Now of course there is science, data and facts to help alleviate women’s fears but mathematical, rational, analytical thinking is just too much for women’s brains. This is why we defer to “the Experts” who happen to be men to tell us what we need to do. Right?
No.
This is just what we’re conditioned to believe about ourselves.
Now this may be breaking new to some – especially those in the media industry – but women are quite capable of thinking and solving problems. I would venture to say that women are even far, far, far better than men at solving complex problems because we think about how this has to work with that, and that has to fit into this but then there is also this other thing we have to consider.
In other words, women are really good at thinking about all of the pieces and parts that are needed to solve a problem, and we are also really good at fitting all of them together to create a complete solution.
However, women aren’t taught to recognize this ability. Instead we are taught that men and their brains are superior to ours in problem solving. So, when women see men and especially “the Experts” get stumped by a complex problem, we believe that of course our poor little emotionally driven brains can’t handle it either.
This belief is what conditions us to respond to complex problems with “I can’t, I can’t, I can’t.”
But we can.
Throughout my career I’ve seen women – irrespective of their education or role – “help men” figure out how to assemble all the pieces and parts of a complex problem to come up with a solution. And it made me question, “Who is the real leader in this situation? Who is the more valuable person?”
So, it’s time for women to break free of our conditioning and recognize our abilities for the leadership qualities they are. But first, we also have to adopt the same attitude as men.
When women adopt this attitude then we will stop saying “No, I can’t” and begin saying “Bring it on….Because…Yes, I can!”
But more importantly, we will experience the joy and challenge of problem-solving and the sense of achievement that comes from creating a solution that works.
All of our workplaces have goals and objectives they want to achieve. The standard approach is to ask the best and brightest employees to generate ideas, work through the planning process and develop a plan to achieve the objective. But, no matter how “well-planned,” our workplaces still experience problems achieving the objective.
Why is that?
It is because the planning process is too entrenched in male-thinking.
Don’t believe me?
Google “Planning Process” and read some of the results. They leave little doubt that the planning process requires a lot of stereotyped male traits – intellectual, analytical, rational etc. They also use a lot of jargon leading us to believe that Planning is what the smart and highly educated people do.
The not-so-smart and not-so-well-educated execute the plans that are handed-down to them. I read “Plans must be communicated and explained to those responsible for putting them into practice. The participation and cooperation of subordinates is necessary for successful implementation of plans.”
Sounds a bit elitist and snobbish.
I could let that pass if the feelings of superiority were deserved – but they aren’t. In my experience very few, if any, plans can be handed-down and implemented without revamping. I’ve seen many plans designed by the so-called planning experts get thrown in the trash because they simply don’t work.
The fundamental problem is that the male-dominated workplace believes in the separation of planning and implementation. This idea goes back to the 19th century and Frederick Taylor’s scientific management theory. Even though we have moved away from a manufacturing economy into a more service and technology based economy, we still dragged a lot of his management theory into the 21st century.
Why?
Dr. Myron Tribus of MIT explained it this way:
“It suits the self-image of managers [and planners] that they were superior, the brains for others who could only supply the brawn.”
So even though the management theory doesn’t produce the best results, the male-dominated workplace hangs onto it because it feeds ego, status and a feeling of superiority for some.
We see this distinction carried out in many of our workplaces (and society) – there is a separation of the educated personnel who “work with their heads” from the “uneducated” personnel who work with their hands.
The Suits
As a young female engineer, this class distinction was readily apparent in my first workplaces. Engineers worked over here and craftsmen worked over there. The only engineers who worked with the craftsmen were there as the managers.
I often thought that if I were a man, I probably wouldn’t question this arrangement. But as a woman the separation and distinction seemed contrived. I questioned it.
When I was assigned several plans to write, I could have sat at my desk and developed them all by myself like my male colleagues were doing. However, I decided to “cross over,” interact with the craftsmen and ask for their input. I found that they were incredibly knowledgeable. I learned that if I wanted to know HOW things worked and HOW to get things done, I should ask them. Working with them, I wrote plans that they later implemented. The plans actually worked and achieved the objective.
About a year later the engineering staff was floundering for 2 years trying to solve a recurring design problem. Many engineering consultants from top firms were brought in. No one could come up with a solution.
Then I had an idea:
Let’s ask the craftsmen who were sent out every week to fix the problem.
I took the initiative to gather them together and asked them if they could come up with a solution. Working together it took them 1 hour to figure it out.
1 freaking hour!!!
That was a pivotal moment.
I realized that all of the separations and the distinctions in the workplace by function and education was a detriment to effective planning and implementation. If everyone worked together through the planning and implementation processes, we would meet and potentially exceed our objectives.
When I became a manager, this became my management philosophy:
Work Together
At first it was difficult because the various factions had rivalries they enjoyed. So, I forced the issue. I scheduled planning meetings between the planners and craftsmen and literally sat in the meetings as the babysitter. Eventually they began building relationships and collaborating. I almost died of shock the first time I walked into the Planning office and found craftsmen in there voluntarily collaborating with the planners.
Within a few months the change in our performance was noticeable. Within a year our performance was exponentially better.
Throughout my career I continued to make the various workplace functions work together in both the planning and execution of work. I believed everyone needed to park their egos at the door and that no one is so smart and so superior that they have all the answers.
I ran into opposition, especially in the last 15 years or so. There seems to be more and more men who believe their education distinquishes them and it is beneath them to interact with the workforce. They believe they get to pontificate from the on-high of their cubicle and create dictates for the minions to follow.
Of course, their dictates don’t work because they don’t understand how things work in the real world. But don’t tell them they are wrong – they get angry and ugly.
However, I NEVER had a problem telling them they needed to get off their perch and participate in the real world if they wanted to be of any value. If they still didn’t listen, I cut them out.
I didn’t involve them. I let them sit in their cubicle by themselves and pout. When they got upset because “they aren’t consulted in their area of expertise, my response was, “We’re all working together over here. You may join us any time you like. That decision is up to you.”
A few men never joined.
For most men, it is a challenge to undo the old learned ways of how the male-dominated workplace should function because their ego and self-identity are tied to their function and place in the organizational hierarchy. I found that women are essential to creating the change.
Women are much more comfortable working together with other people. Women aren’t as ashamed of what they don’t know so they are more willing to ask questions and collaborate. I laughed many times when men witnessed how women work together for the first time. They were amazed by women’s interaction, collaboration, problem-solving and the volume of work women produce.
As a manager I used women to draw men into collaboration. There are always a few men who are easily drawn in by the energy women create when they work together. These men and women form the core of the collaboration group. Once the core is established it is easier to invite more men to join in. Before long men are telling other men they have to join in.
That’s when you know you are successful.
The collaboration group creates a lot of positive energy in the workplace. That positive energy is a natural attraction since so many of our workplaces drain us of energy. As people work together to produce results, achieve the objectives and improve performance, the positive energy grows and the group becomes powerful. It isn’t afraid to take on the bad actors, the people who use the workplace for selfish gain and the workplace bullies.
It is this positive energy that transforms the male-dominated workplace and creates the genuine teamwork we want.
Empowered Women Put Teamwork First By Respecting Everyone, In Every Role
I haven’t written any blogs lately because I’ve been consolidating all of my ideas into a book. It turned out to be more involved and comprehensive than I expected. Now that I am in the editing stages, I am focusing on a central theme – How women’s natural traits are the key to achieving high performance in the workplace.
This is a message we seldom hear.
Instead society is still caught up in the stereotypes and the idea that men excel in business – the way men do business is the way business should be done. But as I say in my book my first impression of the male-dominated workplace was pretty much “What the Hell?” I saw chaos and crisis management all around me.
I knew I could better and I did. And the reason I did better was because I used my female traits. I am very proud to say that I always outperformed my male colleagues. I say this, not to brag, but so women know – Our traits bring tremendous value to the workplace! Any workplace that balances male and female traits will outperform a workplace that only uses male traits.
And what is so amazing, is that when we start using our traits, performance soars immediately.
As some of you know I worked in an extremely male-dominated environment. When I started, the workplace was on course to lose $7 million. In 10 months, we were turning a nice profit of $3.2 million.
How did I achieve such a miraculous recovery?
I empowered all the women to use their female traits.
Of course I know my profession extremely well and that is important. But after trying to work through my all-male management team for three months and getting nowhere, I switched my attention to working through the women.
The women who were project engineers, project coordinators and project administrators became the leaders. The women led my male managers.
No one can tell me that female traits are not powerful. Been there, used them, got the results!
So, all of this advice that tells us that to be successful in the workplace we have to act like men, needs to go away. It is time for society to accept that women hold up half the sky. We bring our own unique traits to the workplace and add to what the men are already doing. When men and women work in balance with each other, then we hold up the entire sky.
As I’ve written my book I refined my list of male and female balancing traits. Why my book is taking me so much longer than I expected is because I am discovering how all traits interact with each other. It is not just about each set of traits balancing each other but a group of female traits working to balance a group of male traits. It is really pretty amazing. And I am in awe of how powerful women really are.
Male
Female
BLUE ZONE
PURPLE ZONE
PINK ZONE
Autonomy
Group
Tangibles in Action
Abstracts in Action
Task Expertise
Multi-tasking
Done!
Done Well
Line
Balance
Circle
Ego Protection
Dispensable Ego
Train
Teach
Stress Limits
Stress Endurance
Power Over Change
Adapt to Change
Offensively Aggressive
Defensively Aggressive
Energy Restraint
Energy Projection
For women to come into their own, we have to start by embracing who we really are. We should be proud of who we are. We are not weak, powerless or inferior in any way. We just haven’t been taught how to apply our traits in the workplace. That, I promise you, will change.
There are days at work when I am just overwhelmed by the long line of people outside my door, all with problems we need to solve. In my frustration I think, “Do I have to solve everybody’s problems for them?! Can’t you guys solve problems yourselves?”
Twenty years ago, when I had fewer responsibilities, I liked solving problems, any one’s problems. I found it challenging. But as a manager supervising nearly a dozen people, I fantasize about employees who come to me and tell me how they successfully took care of a major problem on their own. Since this has been a recurring problem for years and across several workplaces, I used to think that the problem was me – I was a perfectionist control freak, But the sad truth was, that wasn’t the issue. The problem is that most of my employees genuinely do not know how to solve problems. And digging even deeper, I found I had to give them permission to think.
What the heck is going on?
In the past couple of years, I’ve been discovering the answer. It seems in many companies only certain people are allowed to think. Only certain people can make decisions. Only certain people can “think strategically” which I discovered is considered the highest level of thinking. The directive is simple – they think, you act. Thinking and doing are separate and distinct and never done by the same people.
I am also learning that construction has been a little slow in adopting this concept. It seems this philosophy is well entrenched in some industries and it has a name – Taylorism.
I’ve written about Taylor before and how his philosophies shaped the workplace. Basically, Taylor at the beginning of the industrial revolution decided there would be experts who decided the best method for doing work. The experts designed the methods for the working man to carry out. The working man was supposed to park his brain at the door and follow the directive of the expert. Early in my career I thought we were evolving past this – we wanted a thinking workforce. But it seems we made a U turn and Taylorism has met Intellectualism and created Elitism.
So what do we get? A new corporate hierarchy!!
At the lowest rung are all those blue collar guys. You know those guys who work with their hands because they weren’t “smart enough” to get into college.
Then there are the office people who may have tried college but didn’t make it.
Next rung is your basic state college or unknown private university graduate.
Then comes the management levels who have to deal with all those lower people.
Next there is a big gap. Think of a moat. Filled with alligators.
The gap separates and distinguishes the corporate level. I think this is what they are talking about when they say “the C level.” I’ve heard this term thrown around with a resounding air of snobbery and I don’t know what it really means. I just know that we are to be impressed by its exclusivity. But anyway, on this side of the moat, we start a new ladder.
At the bottom are the people who interact with the management of the working and undereducated workforce. As the management of the undereducated working class you are only allowed to talk to these people in the corporate level. It doesn’t matter that you have more degrees, certifications or experience. It doesn’t matter that this low level C person has no concept of the work being done, that’s not his job. His job is to act as a buffer between the regular management and executive management – so executive management doesn’t have to get down in the weeds, get their hands dirty.
The senior executive level is filled with people who have long titles. Everyone is a vice-president and some are Senior VP’s, others Executive VP’s, and still others Senior Executive VP’s. What distinguishes them? I have absolutely no idea!!
Does this sound a little over-the-top and cynical? A year ago, I would have told you it is. But not today.
As I mentioned in my last article, I was on webinars with world-renown consultants trying to teach senior managers how to develop their people. According to the consultants, it is a manager’s responsibility to train people and teach them how to think and problem solve. But there was resistance by men on the call.
And as I mentioned in my last article, one of the things you do in problem solving is ask “why.” So the consultant asked why – why did so many men on the webinar resist the concept of training the workforce to problem solve?
Because the average worker wouldn’t come up with as good of an answer.
Dare I ask “Why?”
Because they didn’t go to college.
Why?
Because they aren’t as smart.
Shall I continue with another –Why?
Because they aren’t as genetically gifted as me.
So why don’t we just say it – a lot of the men on the webinar believed they were better than the average working man. Going to college made them better. Going to a prestigious university instead of a state university made them better. The expansive separation between them and actual work made them better.
Remember the male-dominated workplace is where men can establish their status in the world. And education has emerged as a great discriminator of status. So, if the average working man without a college diploma could solve work problems on his own, then how does the C level employee or manager distinguish himself? What criteria does he use to establish his status?
So, why don’t we teach our employees to think and problem solve?
Because it would ruin the new hierarchy we have been working diligently to establish since Taylor came up with his concepts early in the industrial revolution.
But we aren’t in the industrial revolution anymore – it is time to evolve again. As women in the male-dominated workplace we need to lead the workplace past this newfound elitism. We need to lead in teaching our employees to think and be problem solvers. Our focus for work is not to establish our personal status but to improve the performance of our teams. That is how you win at work.
Empowered Women Discourage Elitism By Teaching Everyone to Think
Let’s admit it – the male-dominated workplace can be pretty dull. This is one of the reasons I liked being out on a construction site – we had a lot more fun! We worked hard and had fun doing it. On site, we weren’t trying to impress anyone with a corporate image like we had to in the main office. In the main office you have to present a “professional” image at all times in case a Client stopped by and made it past the main lobby, conference room and senior offices and got lost in the far back recesses where our offices were located. (more…)
When I think about teamwork, I think of a group of people working together to achieve a common objective. In teamwork each person has their role and they subordinate themselves and their personal importance to the larger objective. Teamwork makes us feel good about ourselves and our achievements.
Right?? Isn’t that what teamwork is all about?
I thought so, but I had a boss who gave me a different perspective on teamwork, one I had have not fully considered before.
According to the dictionary there is a second definition of teamwork: “A group of people who form one of the sides of a game or contest.” We know this definition well – we think of sport teams. Teamwork is used in a competition that produces a definite winner and loser.
This is how my boss thought of teamwork, as part of a competition. In his logic, if there is teamwork, then there is a competition which, most importantly, produces a winner and a loser.
For me this was really surprising to figure out about him. For months I interpreted his “weekly team checks” with him giving me the thumbs-up and me giving him the thumbs-up in return as making sure we were moving forward on correcting the company problems. I never considered that by his “team check” he was really asking “you are still on MY team –right?” I didn’t consider this because I didn’t know who he and I would be competing against. Using my definition of teamwork, the objective was to improve the company’s performance and that was what my boss, my staff and I were working towards…right??
Not quite.
In my boss’s mind, for my company to move up then something had to move down – actually it is more correct to say that for the company and HIM to move up, someone else had to move down. That calls for a competition that would determine the winner and loser.
It took a few weeks but I figured out who my boss was competing against and… ooppss!!! It was the manager I was reaching out to in order to build a larger corporate team!! So when my boss saw me talking to this other manager, he thought I was defecting to the other manager’s team and working against him. This of course caused conflict between me and my boss.
To me it was an utterly ridiculous situation – this should be about teamwork and positive objectives – not about defeating another manager so my boss’s personal insecurities could be quelled.
But this situation got me thinking – had I worked for other managers who only thought of teamwork in a conjunction with a competition? Did they understand how to use teamwork without team rivalries – ust to improve performance?
Surprisingly I thought of a lot of times when teamwork was used to rally the troops in competition against another company but few when my boss touted teamwork to reach a corporate objective. I had to think back to the days when I was in the Air Force or working with the military to find real teamwork. It made me wonder how the American business culture really views teamwork.
Competition is a part of business – there is always a competitor to out-perform. Many companies I worked for were very competitive with a primary rival – like the Washington Redskins versus the Dallas Cowboys. When competing for new work from a client we weren’t just after the new work, we also had to beat our rival. Even if a third competitor got the work, that was OK as long as our rival didn’t win and us lose. We could find a victory in this kind of defeat. (It’s like the Redskins favoring any team who plays and beats the Cowboys!)
Even though competitiveness and teamwork are linked, we don’t have to defeat another group to use teamwork. We can compete against ourselves – against our old performance. This is how I inspired teamwork – I found something tangible and measureable for us to compete against – a goal. In construction, it is easy to compete against time – completing a project by a certain date. We also can compete against poor quality work – have less than 5 punch list items on each phase of work.
When we meet our objective we celebrate just as if we beat our biggest rival for a new project. We also savor the deeper sense of pride and self-confidence we achieve.
But for a lot of people like my boss, the idea of competing against yourself is a difficult concept. It requires humility and the ability to look inward, admitting that you weren’t measuring up to standards you want to set for yourself. People like my boss find it easier to look outward and push someone else down in order to prove himself to himself.
Most of the conflict I experienced at work could have been settled with my definition of teamwork, but competitiveness was chosen instead. Instead of admitting our mistakes or shortcomings, we argued that the other side was overbearing in their standards or requirements. If our team could find a way to push down and discredit their team then we wouldn’t have to admit our mistakes. While my bosses get a sense of victory in that, I don’t.
I will continue to promote my definition of teamwork where the organization works together to achieve an objective that is bigger than ourselves. I don’t need to push another entity down in order to raise us up. We can rise and other entities can remain stationary.
This is what really great managers and companies understand. It is what I learned in the Air Force and like others who have served in the military, this version of teamwork becomes part of who we are. We know that by collectively working together for an objective larger than ourselves we will always excel.
So, don’t take it for granted like I did that you and your company are working from the same definition of teamwork. Look around your company and see if they only use teamwork when competing. You may have to teach them how to have teamwork without competition. And if you have former military members in your office, they will gladly help you.
The empowered woman uses teamwork to improve performance and instill pride and self-confidence in her team.
When I started my career there was a common saying about women who went into non-traditional career fields: “They are looking for a man or they want to be a man.”
Think about the two extreme options this statement presents for women. Our choices are that we are desperate to get married or that we have a gender identity issue.
Not too long ago the expectation was that once a woman married, she would soon become pregnant, quit working and opt for the life of a housewife. And many of my fellow female engineers (and STEM) did this. The top female engineering student at my college graduated a year early so she could get married! Even though she had her pick of jobs and was offered more money than any other student, she took an intern position with Junior League. We all questioned why she even got an engineering degree in, let alone do it in 3 years!
Over time I saw most of my female peers leave engineering and live more traditional lives. (more…)
Have you ever noticed years that singers have their biggest hits when they sing songs that they pick or write themselves, not what the industry tells them to sing? They do best when they connect with a song that expresses who they really are.
When I think about this Garth Brooks always comes to mind – not quite country and not quite rock. He didn’t try to fit into a music industry genre – he created his own. There is something energizing and powerful about that.
Being around a lot of women entrepreneurs lately, I noticed that women start businesses that are an expression of who they are. Their businesses have a meaning or purpose to them. Women personally connect with their businesses. (more…)
I never really liked my tag line “Empowering Women for Success in the Male-Dominated Workplace.”
To me it sounds kind of blah-blah, boring typical professional language. I always felt it was missing something – that it wasn’t exactly hitting the mark of what I needed to say, but I haven’t known what was off.
Sometimes as I am writing my articles I find myself reading my words and saying “Blah, blah, blah, blah,” same old stuff. I then trash it and rewrite using the words and expressions I like. Over time I have noticed that what I am rejecting is all of the professional words and thoughts that have been drilled into me throughout my career. They just seem so freaking dull!
Why are they so dull? Because they are male! I want to express myself as a woman and women have emotion! We have vibrancy and enthusiasm! (more…)
It seems every discussion lately about working women is tied to the term “work-life balance.”
Having been there, done that – I don’t get it! I don’t know what the issue is or what point women are trying to make.
Are women trying to justify leaving work to watch the kids at soccer practice? Are they seeking recognition for carrying a greater load in taking care of their children and homes?
Or are they setting “work-life balance” as a higher moral purpose – as a rationalization to why we are not advancing up the corporate ladder?
No matter what the reason is, I don’t see women coming from a position of strength and empowerment in this discussion. It seems we are trying to justify what we are doing. Instead we should take a lesson from men and just do it!
I’ve looked at a lot of company websites lately and notice that there are a lot more women listed in the staff and corporate officer pages. Can it be – women are finally breaking through the corporate ranks?!! Being me, I always do a little more reading – where is the company headquarters, where are their key markets and critical clients. Then I start matching up this information to the staff and see who is running what.
I’ve noticed a trend. Yes! – Women are definitely running more corporate offices – in Timbuktu!
