Imagine a system that was designed jointly by men and women? What would that be like?
The Observer published an article (Sunday 19 June 2011) by Tim Adams called: Tesoterone and high finance do not mix: so bring on the women. It is an interesting and timely read. The reader comments and reactions are equally interesting. Much of the article focuses on the affect of hormones on male decision making in high risk situations. To be brief, he quoted the following three studies in the article. Draw your own conclusions:
“The first definitive study in this area appeared in 2001 in a celebrated paper that broke down the investment decisions made with a brokerage firm by 35,000 households in America. The study, called, inevitably, ‘Boys will be Boys’ found that while men were confident in making multiple changes to investments, their annual returns were, on average, a full percentage point below those of women who invested the family finances, and nearly half as much again inferior to single women.”
“A more recent study of 2.7 million personal investors found that during the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009, men were much more likely than women to sell any shares they owned at stock market lows. Male investors, as a group, appeared to be overconfident, the author of this study suggested. ‘There’s been a lot of academic research suggesting that men think they know what they’re doing, even when they really don’t know what they’re doing.’ A fact that will come as a surprise to few of us. Men, it seemed, typically believed they could make sense of every piece of short-term financial news. Women, never embarrassed to ask directions, were on the whole far more likely to acknowledge when they didn’t know something. As a consequence, women shifted their positions far less frequently, and made significantly more money as a result.”
“Only 5.5% of executive directors in FTSE 100 companies are women (yet evidence shows that companies with women leaders have a 35% higher return on equity, and companies with more than three women on their corporate board have an 80% higher return on equity).”
In addition to the points made above, other key points I drew from the article:
“Jo Herbert told me at his lab in Cambridge: ‘What is clear is that there are neurological differences between the sexes. Women, in very general terms, are less competitive, and less concerned with the status of being successful. If you want to make women more present, you have to remember two things: the world they are coming into is a man-made world. The financial world. So, either they become surrogate men… or you change the world.’ “
Personally, I prefer we change the world. Attempting to return to the status quo has been the response to the 2008 crisis–and all evidence suggests it’s not working.
Jo Herbert points to a question that has been vexing me for a long time and comes from something I learned in the early years of my career: every system is perfectly designed to achieve the results it gets.
Ergo, if our systems (financial, economic, political, organizations, etc.) are designed by men, is it any wonder that woman are still trying to say, be, act in ways that a man can hear and respect–in other words, we are trying to adjust our style and approach to fit into a system that was never designed by us, for us or with our contribution? Is it any wonder women act like surrogate men? We either borg, we get spit out of the system or choose to leave to save our souls.
Imagine a system that was designed jointly by men and women? What would that be like? Would we recreate what we have, or . . . ?
I would love to hear your comments and any ideas you have about the question I pose.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
There are many dimensions to this very timely topic…such as: the inertia and outcomes of a civilization historically led primarily through the male point of view, how women leaders can/might/do show up who are not surrogate men (who are they currently?), what resistance can be expected from both men and women as more women (let’s get beyond Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann) show up as truly leading from feminine wisdom and power, how best to mitigate this resistance and build support for a broadened feminine perspective as a basis for decision-making in our world, what we can expect to be different when women–who lead from a balanced feminine perspective–take the reigns, etc. What else? Also, along with the brilliant work of Louann Brizendine (The Male Brain, The Female Brain), there are so many great resources showing up: many trainings in feminine leaderships (i.e. Karen Buckley and her colleagues at http://www.thewisdomconnection.com/), Adam Kahane’s thoughtful approach to the need to balance Power and Love (reospartners.com), just for starters.
Hi Barbara, I could hear your energy and passion for this BIG TOPIC coming through your comments. Thanks for pointing out the work of Louann Brizendine, MD, Karen Buckley and Adam Kahane who recently published Power and Love. Glad you are asking some of the really important questions. Wondering about framing it in “feminine leadership,” vs. Female Leadership? I prefer the latter these days. IMHO Female is all encompassing. Feminine seems limited by all the various things the word conjures up, and the many dimensions of women it excludes. What say you?
Hi Wendy…I’m not sure I see the same distinctions here that you do. Can you say more? If you have not, check out what Karen is doing…www.thewisdomconnection.com…she seems to favor the use of “feminine.” To me, “female” may imply more of a sexual distinction that a stylistic one. It may also be fair to use both “frames” depending upon the meaning to be conveyed. How do we get others to weigh in on this? Have signed up for your feed on Google, but it’s not clear how to respond to your posts from there. Any clues? Great web site and blog!
Hi Barbara, Thanks for engaging! No clue how to respond to my feed from Google. I am slightly technologically challenged (OK, maybe more than slightly
) Re: Feminine and Female, I am interested in women playing bigger / having a much larger say in world affairs. I use the word Female because I am referring to gender–specifically because I believe it’s time for women and all of their many aspects–dynamic, receptive, warrior, maternal, quiet, loud, young, old, short, tall, large, small, athletic, brainy, wise, beautiful, charming, direct, mysterious, feminine, brash . . . to move into positions of power and take their power.
Feminine is a word that has a specific sensibility and I believe women are more than feminine. The article spoke of women acting like surrogate men–and I have known many. My experience tells me that this is so because we are trying to conform to / fit into systems–political, governmental, corporate, financial, etc., designed by men and for men. It doesn’t work for us or the world. It is too limiting. I don’t even think it works for many men anymore. Outmoded, outdated, and destructive. I am interested in women coming forward in all of who they are and not having to check parts of themselves at the door. I hope this is clearer.
Perhaps you are using “feminine” to mean female as well? What do you mean lead from a feminine perspective? Yes, I will check out more closely what Karen B. is doing. I know her–we both presented at the W.I.N. Conference in Paris last Oct. and met each other many years ago when I was in grad school.