Let’s start out by admitting we’re lucky, says Sheryl Sandberg, speaking to an all-woman audience at a recent Technology, Entertainment, Design (TED) Conference. We’re luck to be born female in the latter part of the 20th century.
Sort of.
Though we have opportunities unimagined by our grandmothers, “women are not making it to the top of any profession anywhere in the world,” says Sandberg.
In this video, Sandberg, the COO of Facebook, former economist for The World Bank and Chief of Staff to the US Treasury Department Chief, explains why. And she outlines three crucial steps women must take to achieve parity.
Don’t have time for a fifteen minute video? Sandberg’s key points are summarized below.
Sheryl Sandberg: Why we have too few women leaders
The problem: Women don’t lead.
Women make up 50% of the population, but we’re not leaders:
- Women don’t lead enough countries: Out of 190 heads of state, only nine are women.
- Women don’t lead enough businesses: In the corporate world, women make up just 15-16% of all C-level executives.
- Women don’t lead enough non-profit organizations: Women comprise only 20% of not-for-profit leaders.
- Women’s leadership numbers have stalled since 2002—and today they’re headed downward.
3 fixes for our dearth of women leaders
Sandberg, a mother of two, gives a balanced appraisal of the powerful forces that pull women away from corporate and civic leadership. I appreciate her acknowledgment that child rearing is the hardest of all jobs—and that work outside the home is not for every woman.
But for women who do want to stay in the workforce, Sandberg offers three pearls of wisdom:
- Sit at the table. Don’t hide on the sidelines at work—literally or figuratively. Studies show that women systematically underestimate their abilities: While men attribute success to innate qualities, women credit external factors—someone helped them, they got lucky, they worked unbelievably hard. Though it may feel counter-intuitive, place yourself in a visible place where you can see, be seen and participate in the action.
- Make your partner a real partner. While women don’t lead enough businesses, we’ve made more advances at work than at home: Today, in families with two working parents, women still perform twice as much housework and three times as much childcare as men. So, if the work-family juggle collapses, it’s most often women—who are working three jobs—who “opt-out” of professional careers. Sandberg notes, “We have to make it as important a job to work inside the home—for both genders—if we’re going to even things out and get women to stay in the workforce.”
- Don’t leave before you leave. From the moment a woman starts thinking about having a child, she “stops raising her hand” to take on initiatives and responsibilities that lead to promotion, says Sandberg. Women often begin their professional retreat years before they marry, solidify significant relationships or plan pregnancy. The professional fallout is disastrous. “Once you have a child at home, your job had better be really good because it’s hard to leave that kid at home,” says Sandberg. “Your job needs to be challenging, rewarding, you need to feel you’re making a difference.” Her advice? “Don’t leave before you leave. Stay in. Keep your foot on the gas pedal until the very day you need to leave to take care of a child—and then make your decisions. Don’t make decisions too far in advance.”
The world needs women leaders.
Like Sheryl Sandberg, I believe “a world where half of our countries and half of companies are run by women would be a better world.” I hope, like me, you’ll share this video with your daughters, nieces, women co-workers and girlfriends. And your sons, husbands, male co-workers and men friends.
Lorraine, myself and some of my female friends have been passing this around the interwebs for a few weeks now. Thank you, thank you, thank you for putting this out there. I thought the speech was dynamite. As a young feminist, I get flak a lot, of the “Women are BASICALLY equal now,” variety, and it’s aggravating on so many levels. The first reason is, quite obviously, women are not basically equal; not in pay, not in power, and certainly not in status in most societies. We’re “lucky” we don’t see or hear that every day here in the U.S.– although I suspect if most men and women really asked themselves whether women are on completely equal footing even in our relatively affluent nation, they’d think twice. I won’t dive into that rabbit hole here. 🙂
But the bigger issue is exactly what you’ve articulated here. “Equality” is a process, one that’s begun to lose some momentum. Just because I can expect to get hired and have choices does not mean I will become a C-level executive. And if I withdraw, if I stop “raising my hand,” I’ll get left in the dust. It’s heartbreaking that we must make these choices if we want to advance our careers, but it’s not impossible to change our attitudes– and in doing so, change the attitudes of others who work alongside us.
Many, many thanks for this wonderful post.
@Lindsey: Thanks for your thoughts on Sandberg’s TED talk and on women’s leadership. I so agree with you. And anyone who thinks women have achieved parity need only look at the numbers.
I like Sandberg’s balanced take on this stubborn issue. Without letting society or corporate culture off the hook, she points out ways women trip up themselves–perhaps unconsciously. Studies show that little boys raise their hands (literally) more in school than little girls even when the boys don’t know the answers. Boys seem hardwired to to take action–and risks. Of course women can and should take risks–but we may have to train ourselves to do so. I.e.: Teach ourselves to take action, even when we’re fearful.
On a related side note: I think (big generalization coming) boys don’t care as much what people think of them, i.e.: Whether they get the answer right or not–failure is not a crushing defeat. Women’s consideration of others is not a bad thing–but it can hold us back. Sandberg describes women’s professional backpedaling–sometimes years before they plan on having a child. While this retreat may well be a woman’s attempt to prepare herself for a child, I think it’s also a way for women to avoid letting down bosses and co-workers: We take the hit ourselves, rather than disappoint others.
It doesn’t occur to most men to think that way.
Interestingly, Sandberg’s TED talk made the Interweb rounds last week at the same time as a Salon.com post, Regrets of a Stay at Home Mom. In the Salon post, the reporter recalls her decision to give up her job as a reporter upon the birth of her second child. While she loved raising her two boys, today the cute toddlers are teens and she’s divorced, flat broke–and unemployable. A painful, but crucial read:
https://www.salon.com/2011/01/06/wish_i_hadnt_opted_out/
Lorraine, I agree with you. I think the reason I liked Sandberg’s talk too was because, as you note, she doesn’t let society or corporate culture entirely off the hook. Too often this discourse is either/or, and it’s always more popular for a woman in power to tell women it’s completely their fault. I like that Sandberg is a model for women like me; she has everything, yet can admit that sacrifices were necessary all around. Haven’t men been doing that for years? Or do they not see missing their childrens’ youth as a “sacrifice”? Hard to say. I think most men would argue they do, but only recently.
And I thoroughly agree with your generalization. It’s something I remind myself of routinely. In one of my (several!) roles, I work with a company that is comprised entirely of men. I notice myself avoiding risks or taking smaller risks than they do, and yet I don’t doubt myself fundamentally; I know I deserve to be there, and I know I bring something to the table they don’t. I have to teach myself to raise my hand, and it isn’t always easy. Luckily, I’ve had this experience more than once– and I like to think I’m getting better and better at it.
In Salon, Katy Read brings up a different but equally important perspective, which is the financial one. This paragraph struck me the most: “Salary experts estimate the market value of a stay-at-home parent’s labor (child care, housecleaning, cooking, laundry, driving, etc.) at about $118,000. This hollowly cheerful calculation has always struck me as patronizing, with the effect, if not the intention, of further diminishing our status. Moms — aren’t they the greatest? They should be pocketing as much as a registered pharmacist or the mayor of Chula Vista, Calif., yet they’ll happily accept payment in the form of adorable gap-toothed smiles. An implied, faintly sinister coercion — a good mom doesn’t want money — fuels a system that relies on our unpaid childcare, household chores and volunteer work but offers no safety net.”
Sandberg touches on this point too, and I don’t think it could possibly be overstated, which is that reinforcing the “value,” moral or financial, of SAHMs is to silence them and keep them out of the workforce. But worse, the “valuing” of motherhood perpetuates a system that rewards and even “needs” women who opt out.
What a terrifying thought. I believe in my heart there are many men, my husband included, who would like to think that this is not their destiny any more than it is mine.
P.S. Sorry to hijack your comment thread!
The fact is, if men had babies, we wouldn’t be discussing why women can’t sit “at the table”.
The fact is, if we had wives, we wouldn’t be discussing why our partners aren’t “real” partners.
The fact is, if we had parents or elders who didn’t ask us, “When are you getting married”? and then, “When are you going to have a baby?” we wouldn’t be leaving before we left.
@Lindsey: You’re welcome to hijack my comments any time! But I don’t see your responses as hijacks: This is a HUGE subject that lends itself to digression and addenda. A propos of Katy Read’s remarks on salary, wonder if you’ve read Ann Crittenden’s The Price of Motherhood? It provides a wealth of facts and figures substantiating the enormous financial sacrifices women make when they have children. Crittenden also shares some thoughtful countermeasures.
@Karen: I ♥ you, Karen–and wholeheartedly agree!