Ignore the ‘Sexual Static’ and You May Go Away

No one can deny that men and women are different, whether because of biology, socialization or a combination of both. Yet the persistence of glass ceilings in most large organizations can be laid at the doorstep of a failure to acknowledge, understand and value gender differences.

In my book “America’s Competitive Secret: Women Managers” (Oxford University Press), I suggest that the persistence of glass ceilings in U.S. organizations today is a “bottom line” issue. To ignore this is to miss the wave of the future: women joining men in positions of power and utilizing previously wasted human capital.

The United States has the largest supply of well-educated, skilled professional women in the world. Recognizing their value is imperative if we are to maintain our competitive edge internationally, for skilled human capital is becoming a limited resource.

By virtue of their life experience, and perhaps biology, women have a different--not better--way of viewing the world. In a business context, they have different insights about product development and service delivery. They usually exercise power and resolve conflict differently than men. And they tend to identify and resolve problems differently. Seen in this light, they bring added value to the executive suite, not substitutions for the contributions of men. Yet the infusion of women into the upper echelons of corporate power in this country remains slow.

*

Perhaps it is because it is still true that “to be a leader is to be a male.” It is still assumed that men have the “right stuff,” that the “command and control” leadership style associated with male attributes--aggressiveness, comfort with power and control and individual competitiveness--is the “one best model.” However, a more “interactive” leadership style is often required in today’s fast-changing service-oriented global economy because of the need for partnerships, people skills and international alliances. This style is often associated with female attributes--sharing power and information, concern for process and collaboration, and comfort with ambiguity--but has historically been dismissed as weak and ineffective. So it’s not surprising that the captains of industry have not perceived women as a needed component of their leadership teams.

*

Today they do so at their peril.

The turnover rate of professional women is twice that of men in large firms, and women are leaving large corporations to start their own firms at three to five times the rate of men.

The National Foundation for Women Business Owners, or NFWBO, estimated in 1995 that women-owned businesses employed 15.5 million workers, whereas the Fortune 500 employed only 11.5 million.

The NFWBO estimates that there were more than 8 million women-owned businesses in 1996, with $2.3 trillion in sales, employing one in four U.S. company workers. Clearly, men also feel devalued, but not usually because they are male! Although there is no proof of a causal relationship between the slow progress of women into upper management and the increase in women leaving corporations to become entrepreneurs, there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence that supports this belief.

Many theories have been proposed to explain why professional women continue to be devalued and their talents underutilized in the business world. All of them have merit, but I have my own theory based on what I call “sexual static.” I contend that men experience a sense of irritation and confusion working with women in new roles, and this irritation is much like the discomfort caused by static on a radio.

It’s annoying, and, not knowing its source, many businessmen tend to avoid it, hoping it will eventually disappear. On the other hand, executives who attempt to determine the source of the static in order to minimize its negative impact usually run companies that attract and retain the best and brightest women--and men.

What are the sources of sexual static? One is “role confusion”--that women are playing new roles and that there are few new rules. Thus, men receive mixed signals about how to behave when working with or for women. Another source is “garbled communication,” the fact that men and women communicate differently, which often causes misunderstanding and misinterpretation. A third source is “culture clash,” which occurs when women challenge the dominant male culture in organizations, asking that it be inclusive rather than exclusive and embrace female values and ways of thinking and acting.

*

I contend it is the widespread discomfort felt by men who experience sexual static that explains much of the resistance to removing glass ceilings. This resistance--often subconscious--is not surprising, because the glass ceiling for the women below it is the floor for the men above it. Hence, for those above the ceiling, its removal creates a fear of falling. In reality, removing the ceiling allows for an infusion of new thinking and improved productivity and innovation.

There are costs to organizations as well as individuals for ignoring the waste of talent that the devaluation of female attributes represents. It costs $50,000 to $70,000 to replace a top-level professional, and, if the turnover rate for women is twice that of men, the costs can be considerable. Although the costs of female turnover-- absenteeism, low morale and low productivity, so often associated with feeling devalued--are not clear-cut, clearly there are costs.

More important, the infusion of women into the executive suite has benefits that can no longer be ignored, for the woman you lose today may become your biggest competitor tomorrow.