21st Century Ambitions Should be Multi-Dimensional and Collectively Empowered

It was recently brought to my attention that Deborah Spar, Barnard’s president, wrote a response to Anne-Marie Slaughter’s article, “Why Women Can’t Have It All”.  Spar brought up the point that women should continue to let their ambitions breathe instead of stepping away too soon from the table, as has coined it Sheryl Sandberg, or give up their ambitions before even entering the game out of dread for being unable to have it all and for the anticipated guilt linked to juggling so much.  Spar argues that women deserve to be boosted in their ambitions rather than focus on the perils along the way.

I agree heartily that every individual should have his or her ambitions and be able to pursue them as an individual, his or her own “way”. 

However, I can’t help but notice that, once again, the heavy lot of pursuing one’s ambitions in a somewhat hostile environment is conceptualized as an individual’s plight only:  to make it there where few arrive, at the highest rung, no matter the personal sacrifice, and to make it there alone.

It has often been remarked that the woman’s movement allowed for women to enter the workforce… but only according to men’s conditions and rules; that somehow “she” had to be “a man plus some” to make inroads at all.  And while some women are changing the rules and gaining in clout (remember recent laments of “if only it had been Lehman sisters”), much of this world remains a man’s world.  Within it, individuals’ quest for selfhood and self-fulfillment has obeyed, and continues to obey, the andocentric “hero myth” in which the individual strikes out against all peril (albeit with many helping, expendable hands), kills/seduces the evil woman, all in order to achieve the ultimate prize or goal.  In this hero myth, the individual plays a linear, solitary, all-or-nothing game of singular purpose.  Modern women have taken on this myth for themselves, relieved to finely be free to pursue this hero myth from which they were entirely excluded for so long. 

The problem with this worldview is twofold.  First of all, such a singular purpose is not pertinent to many women (or men).  Second, much must be improved collectively, instead of condemning individual ambitions to being such a solitary struggle. 

1.        A singular purpose is incomplete for many

The hero-myth requires the hero-to-be to reduce his/her life to a single dimensional outlook. 

Yet, human reality and potential are far richer than that.  We are similar to quarks and could gain much by accepting that we are highly sophisticated, multi-dimensional, beings capable of embodying simultaneously multiple purposes and needs.  The tacit societal agreement to limit ourselves to linear paths (with a positive slope) and to singularity of being is neither necessary nor preferable. 

Yet, in the meantime, this worldview has led us down the slippery slope of exclusion.  How can it be that we are actually letting ourselves be convinced collectively that only 2 models exist:  having children or having a career… and that any alternative is symptomatic of inadequacy or symbol of infidelity (not engaged enough as a mother or not engaged enough as an employee).  How can it be that learned, insightful, thoughtful thinkers can follow a track that makes total abstraction of having children, a kind of Brave New World in which some will carry babies and others will think and act, dissociating entirely the stuff of life and some nebulous imperative of “ambitions”?

I’ve mentioned it in a past blog but I think the idea has not received the attention it deserves:  Kathryn Ann Rabuzzi wrote, back in the 1980s, about the need for a new myth:  the Motherself.  For men and for women.  It doesn’t mean having children nor does it mean giving oneself entirely to children.  It means erecting a model that is less solitary, less linear, less individualistic, and less uni-dimensional than our current hero-myth.  It means embodying more than one ambition (personal and professional); it means having a purpose that leaves room for others with us instead of making it a solo zero-sum game in which the winner takes all.  But, above all, it means society deciding to accept that quality of life nourishes quality of work; that productivity and performance will increase if and only if we allow each individual’s multi-dimensionality to bloom.

However, this is unlikely to happen as long as we shackle individuals’ challenges exclusively to individuals’ gains, which leads me to my second objection to nurturing the hero-myth perspective:

2.       Much can be improved collectively allowing individual ambitions to be less of a solitary struggle. 

In the midst of our performance society that so values domination, power and wealth (of an individual or dynasty), we are afraid of building with others lest it puts us at a disadvantage or doesn’t milk our own individual/familial achievements fully enough.  There are plenty of stories of parents writing their kids’ school papers or cheating to help their kids get ahead.  There are the voucher schools that weed the best&ambitious into one school, leaving the under-financed and under-privileged in another.  And so on and so forth.  This isn’t to point fingers.  This is to illustrate that we are all falling into the game of “I, against the world”.  And that, in our fall, we are losing hold of the sense of community a society requires and in which it’s a game of “I, empowered with the world”.

As a consequence, women’s ascension to meeting their ambitions are beholden to a solitary, zero-sum game (like the hero-myth but with even more demons to be beheaded than for a man).  It is often mentioned that women do not display the kind of solidarity that the “old boy’s network” has, and that oftentimes women are competitive with each other rather than helpful (or even simply empathetic)!  But it doesn’t need to be that way.

In each of my posts since last November, I have made the same plea:  in this 21^st century, it is time we, collectively, revalued family, intergenerationalism, interdependence.    We must revalue the collective, the constructive.  Pull away from the individualistic nuclear family and build our society, community.  Not like in a religion that dulls each voice to create unison but a community with humanist values that orchestrates a symphony or jazz session. 

Let’s face it:  it’s for false and contrived reasons that children be exclusively considered of negative value for a woman executive.  And there’s no reason every single woman must reinvent the wheel or take on singlehandedly every battle in tow in order to pursue her ambitions.  It is time that we foster a more spherical, holistic life scheme.  We must stop valuing only individualistic short-term performance and pursue sustainable development for people and communities. 

What does it mean “sustainable development for people and communities” and what are the steps to get there? 

And what does it mean concretely to shift from the hero-myth to the motherself-myth? 

Now that performance seems to have trumped living, making us lose touch with much of the richness inherent in our humanity, we are increasingly losing our liberty and our control over our own lives. 

How can we, as a community, reclaim our many forgotten strengths to positively shape this new century into a beacon of light and a springboard for progress for all of us, not just the elite? 

These are the issues I will be exploring over this new academic year.  Join the debate with me and let’s make this world the way we want it to be.

Talk to you next week,

Eve

CEO Moms, Trophy Husbands... why don't we try for balance instead?

I just read an article in Business Week 9/01/2012 titled, « Behind Every Woman, the rise of the CEO mom has created a new kind of trophy husband », written by Carol Hymowitz.  

In the article, Hymowitz portrays a number of families in which the male partner has put his career on hold to enable his wife or, in one example, male partner, full availability to build her/his career.  Hymowitz notes some of the satisfactions (success, greater hand in parenting by the father) and frustrations (lack of balance, missing out on the kids for the women, missing out on career for the men, alienation of being an at-home husband, difficulties for getting back into the workforce), as well as some of conclusions being made (woman or man, you need a “wife” to be a CEO and parent, and the corollary need to choose a spouse who won’t mind staying home – “marry down or marry older men who are ready to retire”, cites Hymowitz of one author). 

Hymowitz counter-balances these familial examples with quotes from “Get to work” author Hirshman who reminds the need for both professional and personal happiness and Kathleen Christensen’s warning that a simple role reversal risks leading to a “masculine mystique” by 2020.

It’s a fine article and I’d like to build on it.

Before I get started, I want to celebrate the fact that pioneering women are making strides, showing it increasingly possible to be a woman, make it to the top, be taken seriously, and stay there… all while also having children.  They are still few but growing in number (Hymowitz notes 18 women CEOs among the Fortune 500 vs. 0 in 1970), and, as the world’s opinion of women’s leadership capacity evolves and improves, every additional “member” may potentially create in-roads for other female contenders who have yet to make it.

That said, of the world’s 500 biggest companies’ CEOs, only 13 are women… and while there are increasing numbers of women executives (in 2010, 45% of executives and managers in the US were women, and 5% of top management, according to a Pew Research Center study, May 2010), the salary gap remains considerable (17.9% in France and 24.1% in the US). 

So we are making strides, but we still have a long way to go… giving us just enough leeway to proactively decide the system we actually want to put in place for our society and that of future generations. 

For starters, a simple reversal of roles doesn’t make much sense for the mid to long-term.  It doesn’t make sense for men.  It doesn’t make sense for women… or for children… or for society at large. 

• We know the frustrations women have experienced with such a model.  Who could possibly benefit from thrusting them onto men?  It’s a dead-end street and we know it.  We need to switch from a sum zero game to building together as partners.  We shouldn’t be in retaliation mode but rather constructive mode.
• We also know the frustrations of staying home with the kids was at times (and is now increasingly so) mirrored by a frustration of not getting to take care of the kids at all.  At long last, men are coming a little more into their rights as fathers whereas for so long they were confined to their breadwinning roles.  We as women should be wary of giving up those rights entirely just for the sake of “making it”.
  Meanwhile, it remains questionable as to whether women should integrate the 20^th century masculine model of work and management or if women can catalyse the implementation of a new, 21^st century model.  Especially considering the new profile increasingly expected form upcoming generations seeking leaders enabling better work-life balance, giving more meaning, inspiring more, leading by example and greater ethics (les echos, 24/01/2012, “le dirigeant de demain?  L’inverse du profil actuel”)
• We also know too that more and more men (joining many, many women) are raising their children alone (in France, at the end of 2010, 10% of children aged 0-6 in single parent families were being raised by their father and 18% of 17-24 year olds – france soir, 14/12/2010).  For neither of these growing populations of single parents can we decide having a “wife” is the only key to “having it all”!  This population already proves that the “wife” model is not a model of the future.
• Going further, I don’t believe it sustainable for the nuclear family of 2 parents with kid(s) either.  I just saw the movie, “I don’t know how she does it” which depicts our Western expectation of equality-based relationships with our spouses and in which everyone must play their full role.  The happy ending with which she narrowly escapes the collapse of her marriage thanks to the fact that, after selling her soul to her employer, she finally asks for a weekend off, feels very short lived and unlikely to really resolve any of the issues at hand.

For our 21^st century society that we are building, we need to pursue a more balanced ecosystem.  Everywhere I turn, there are studies bringing evidence to this need.  Companies are better managed and more profitable when there’s good mix of gender.  Families are reportedly better balanced and happier when there’s a good mix of masculine and feminine (a subject upon which I’ll elaborate in another post).  Society flourishes and progresses more when both men and women are (equally) empowered (I put equally in parentheses because it’s debatable as to whether there’s equality in any country…).  And, in our Western temples of individualism, let’s remember that individuals also thrive on personal balance.  Further, the collective makes progress when individuals are healthy and balanced in order to be able to share and cooperate with others.

It seems so obvious but the way we are living is unintentionally preventing it from being our reality.  In a study published last week, the greatest discrimination experienced among professionals in France is age and maternity.   From experience, I’m prepared to vouch that it’s increasingly the case for parents in general (at least for the parents who expect to play a major role in raising their children vs. outsourcing it entirely to nannies).   As companies increasingly require total availability of its employees, employers panic at the very thought of someone not being at their full disposal, heart and soul.    The dominant managerial model demands hyper-availability, mobility (often at maternity age), minimal personal infringement on professional aspects, networking, and, in certain countries like France, “presence”.  Perhaps as a result, there is a worrisome, albeit unsurprising, rise in burn-out with pretty much the same diagnosis across the board:  work overload and pressure, exhaustion caused by the sprint-marathon our performance society is demanding of men and women.  In France, it has even caused a series of suicides.

The shareholders are most certainly delighted…  but, as far as I’m concerned and concerned for future generations, I think we must demand a different model and reconsider the way we work.

The way we work, what we understand as the new keys leading to profitability and performance (plus, perhaps, some considerations as to ethics and responsibility!!!) and… beyond corporations’ performance, we need to consider the new keys to a healthy, sustainable society.

For this, we must start by revaluing life outside of work.   The whole conception of doing nothing but work when we’re executives makes little sense.  Lydie Salvaire, psychiatrist in France and author, says she sees people who are no longer the subjects of their work, they’ve just become pawns that are moved around without a second’s thought… she notes their feeling of loss of self as they give their all to companies’ culture of results without developing themselves otherwise (muze oct nov dec 2011).  Indeed, I recently met a woman who was greatly deceived and disappointed by the company model when she found herself fired after 11 years of total devotion to her job, allowing no time for reomance, family, or life in general.  Companies cannot be expected to “care” for us – we need to look out for ourselves and make sure we’re not getting a bum deal.

That said, it is evident that both refreshing our minds and building our competences by way of other activities and discoveries are key to doing a good job professionally.   We, as a society, have accepted that for children, realizing that much of their learning is acquired through play.  It seems foolish to not accept that, with the diversity of our brain functioning and so forth, that we can improve the quality of our work, input, and innovation thanks to external stimuli… and rest (ah, but in a performance society, need for rest seems a weakness!).

We also need to revalue all the unpaid work within that ‘out of office’ life.  And most urgently,   to re-value the work of child rearing… by both the mother and the father. 

What I’m getting at is:  maybe we shouldn’t be applauding the fact of structuring families so as to perpetuate lopsided-ness in which one parent meets with burn-out and the other meets with isolation or the ugly realities of getting back into the workforce (such has been the case for women for decades and, according to Hymowitz’s article, stay-at-home dads seem to have similar barriers). 

Yes, women and men should be able to develop their careers, make it to the top, etc.  And yes, they should simultaneously be able to have children and/or hobbies, etc. 

Hopefully at-home husbands’ acts and testimonies will help Western societies become more aware of this precious contribution as well as how hard it is to accomplish.  Oftentimes our society tends to see the “feminization” of professions as a way of gutting them of their roles and attractiveness (cf. Eric Zemmour’s Premier Sexe)… hopefully the “masculization” of home economics will help those fields gain in legitimacy and importance.   At the very least, we seem to be waking up to the positive and negative realities of child rearing.

And with this knowledge, we should pursue changing the myth.  Shift from the hero myth in which we can only devote energies to our singular self… to the motherself myth with which men and women can still develop themselves… but with others, not against them or without them.

Rendez-vous next week for another bite from the apple!