<p>“who railroads her ideas through without considering other viewpoints, barks orders without acknowledging employees’ humanity, and is arrogant?”</p>
<p>A woman who does this is often called a bword. A man who does this is often called CEO.</p>
<p>That’s the whole point of what Hunt and I are both saying, although we’re coming at it from different perspectives. He’s pointing out that in business we accept behaviors from men that we don’t accept from women. I’m saying that in business we view the behaviors of women, and we evaluate the results of men. If a man railroads through his ideas without considering others’, is arrogant, etc., but gets good results, he’ll be tolerated and/or promoted. People evaluating women who act this way, stop at the “she’s a mean girl” analogy.</p>
<p>In a way, Bay, you did this yourself by divorcing the concept of how the women is acting, without mentioning whether the woman got results. You didn’t mention results, did you? If you respond that women with those behaviors don’t yield good results, then I would ask you why men can be successful with exactly those behaviors. </p>
<p>I intentionally divorced the results, because that is what Sandberg and others (you) are doing when you talk about “bossy” in a vacuum. Bossy doesn’t mean “leader.” Bossy is a type of management style that is offensive to many people. </p>
Bay, do you not get the concept that the same management style is praised (or at least valued) in men, but criticized in women? Or do you just disbelieve the statements of those of us who have observed this? You seem to missing the point somehow.</p>
<p>I’m not missing the point. I just don’t believe it matters as much as some want it to. If employee satisfaction and productivity indicate that a woman manager is highly effective, then by definition it is irrelevant (to everyone other than herself) that a woman might be called “bossy.” And I also do not subscribe to the idea that the behaviors of men and women, including their reactions to others, must be identical in order to create a productive working environment.</p>
<p>If Stephanie Jobs gets fired for the same management style that made Steve Jobs a CEO star, that’s bad for Stephanie. But it’s bad for me, too; I’m missing out on good products that Stephanie would have shepherded to the market.</p>
<p>“I intentionally divorced the results, because that is what Sandberg and others (you) are doing when you talk about “bossy” in a vacuum. Bossy doesn’t mean “leader.” Bossy is a type of management style that is offensive to many people.”</p>
<p>The last thing I have done is talk about bossy in a vacuum since I have linked perception to job performance frequently. I don’t know what other words to use to explain the position, and am inclined to agree with Hunt. </p>
<p>If anyone wants an example that is very on point, google the King & Spalding discrimination case. I could mention more up to date examples but they’re too well known in the industry I work in. </p>
This is an odd comment, since the clear desire of those arguing against your position is that it shouldn’t matter at all–but it continues to matter because of a double standard that is applied by people in positions of authority.</p>
<p>Have any of you who are arguing with the “Ban Bossy” website actually gone to look at the website?? I don’t think you have, because what you’re arguing against is not what the website is talking about.</p>
<p>I have looked at it. What do you see on the website that indicates we are off-base?</p>
<p>VH, do you have any daughters? I have raised two who are now adults, and neither of them, to my knowledge has been called "bossy,’ (although one may have because she has a strong personality but if so it never bothered her enough to tell me about it). As I have articulated in this thread, the whole idea seems like such a non-issue in this day and age. My Ds were wildly successful in school, including in numerous leadership positions, as were their girlfriends. As I said, nearly all of our student government positions were held by girls. I just don’t buy it as a premise relevant to today. “Girls with the courage to raise their hands…” Really? I’m guessing the website is aimed at a different cohort than the one my Ds grew up in.</p>
<p>Whether calling women “bossy” is an issue in the workplace is outside the scope of that website, but that is what this thread has morphed into. And again, I have never heard a woman actually called “bossy” in the workplace.</p>
<p>I’ve read through some of the posts here and I’m conflicted. On one hand, I agree that women are disproportionately demonized for behavior that would be tolerated, even celebrated, in a man. On the other hand, rather than “banning bossy,” it’s high time that we started disapproving of the behavior. Period. </p>
<p>I’ve watched corporate antics with horror. They are ego-bound, nonproductive, and self-fulfilling. It looks too much to me like the lab group in which my D found herself: A “bossy” girl wasted a good fifteen minutes of the group’s time by insisting that they proceed incorrectly, refusing to listen to the other two members of her group. The two held their ground and finally, when it was clear beyond question that they were correct, the group was able to move forward. * This * is a leader? * This * is what we think makes for a good male or female CEO?</p>
<p>Sheryl Sandberg is not a figure I’d care to emulate nor is she one I’d coach my children to follow. She perpetuates male-centric ideals that have proven unworkable for women, is not above advancing herself by using flirtatious behavior, and then has the nerve to go out and demand that we “exonerate” her and all follow her lead.</p>
<p>I sat through her commencement speech at Barnard and when she started, citing Nick Kristof’s “Half the Sky,” I sat up eagerly and waited to hear her talk about women empowering women around the globe. Nope. All she did was launch into a narrow discussion of upper middle class advantage and how great we all have it, success as defined by an (outdated) corporate ladder and as a last little gift, a guilt trip that these young graduates should succeed on this path. Not a word about changing expectations. Not even a word about the power of women to help redefine corporate culture. Shortly after, I happened to hear Gloria Steinem talk about the plight of women in our first world country: our infant mortality rates, our sad and inadequate medical coverage for women, our lack of family leave from workplaces. It was quite an interesting contrast. </p>
<p>Bay: I do not have daughters. But I am a woman myself, and I’ve worked in corporate environments for over 40 years. I have been called bossy. I have been ignored in meetings – even when I’m speaking. My articulated ideas have been ignored during a meeting, until a man picked up the same idea and articulated it.</p>
<p>Women are ignored, unless they exhibit behavior that is then shamed. In my experience, it’s very hard to win.</p>
<p>Obviously, I tend to fall on this end of the argument. After having helped two daughters navigate the trials and tribulations of growing up, my primary concern for girls is bullying. While we seem to have all but wiped out boys physical fighting in the schoolyard, it seems to me that female bullying has gotten worse than I remember it, and can have lasting negative effects on girls’ self esteem.</p>
<p>To me, being bossy borderlines being a bully. The last thing I would want to have happen is that girls and boys misunderstand the difference, and end up not reporting bullying behavior by girls because they are now being told to shut up about it. I’d rather see Sandberg focus on banning bullying, rather than something that appears to me to be a non-issue. Maybe when her little girl hits middle school, she will figure this one out.</p>
<p>They are not being told to shut up about bossy behavior. The website is suggesting that we stop calling girls bossy when the girls are demonstrating leadership qualities.</p>