<p>I think it’s quite possible that past a certain point, there are things women value more than they value “more money” for the sake of more money. </p>
<p>The problem may be in measuring success by the same ruler being used by people who only value money. </p>
<p>I, for example, value freedom and relationships more than money, past a certain point. I’m not sure everyone wants the same outcome, but it doesn’t mean that shouldn’t get the same treatment in a class they paid the same amount to take.</p>
<p>I absolutely think this is true. I could kick myself for not being a better negotiator when I was younger. I have definitely paid a price for it. Since then I have counseled numerous young women about asking for what they are worth and not just taking the first offer that comes to them. I will tell my daughter the same thing once she gets past the minimum-wage market for teenage workers. :)</p>
<p>My son did that too, sally. Thought it was a great job offer and afterwards regretted not negotiating. We’ve never had jobs that you could negotiate anything for, so it didn’t even occur to us to suggest it.</p>
<p>I think HBS is doing all the students a disservice by permitting blatant sexism, they are ill preparing these young men for the workplace where it won’t be tolerated, (and can result in harassment charges), showing the women that it is the HBS that is antiquated by permitting it and furthermore as Hayden stated quite well, they are not teaching the more sophisticated, artful forms of communication, influence etc. </p>
<p>We are launching Lean In circles in my workplace to inspire women to lean in, (when they need and/or choose to) and to teach managers how to support these efforts. The comments cited in the article are examples of bullying imho, and are not tolerated in most work settings.</p>
Geez, Sally, way to really take the level of conversation into the gutter! You attacked me for having a different opinion, assume that I’m a blowhard with no leadership skills, and created a false dichotomy between being a blowhard and being a doormat. </p>
<p>I will say this again: the women who are afraid to raise their hands in class are college graduates with spectacular business resumes that impressed HBS, are allegedly in business school to rock the corporate world - and are now sitting silently in a class wherein half of their grade depends on their participation.</p>
<p>It would be like a pro basketball player who is afraid when someone passes him the ball: totally understandable in many people, but sort of ridiculous in the current situation.</p>
<p>Way to misinterpret. Sally wasn’t calling YOU an arrogant blowhard. She was saying that the (allegedly extant) male classroom monopolists at Harvard are arrogant blowhards, and that a woman who calmly gives a compelling analysis, after the arrogant blowhards have stopped spouting off, is exhibiting leadership.</p>
<p>Everyone is correct, aries–I wasn’t referring to you. Let me ask you this, though. If you were running a meeting, and you noticed that some of the smartest people in the room didn’t speak up much because they were drowned out by the more vocal participants, wouldn’t you do something to achieve a better balance to the conversation and make sure all viewpoints were heard? Aren’t boards of directors and leadership teams selected because of the various strengths each member brings?</p>
<p>Agreed. If one’s browbeating other classmates into silence and taking up a sizable chunk of the class time hearing his/her own voice…that individual’s depriving everyone else and him/herself of insights and other contributions from other classmates in the class.</p>
<p>In fact, I often use that behavior as a quick way to red flag folks who are likely to be the least valuable/intelligent contributors of the group. So far, that “shortcut” has yet to fail me in a group setting.</p>
<p>There’s more to the world than just lawyers. In the world of business that I inhabit – consumer packaged goods, pharmaceutical companies, media companies, advertising agencies, consulting companies, service companies – it’s all business casual and has been for years. And women do just fine in these worlds. What we worked in in the mid-eighties is now only worn by relics. The world has moved past that.</p>
<p>I do not know whether this is a norm or not. At several companies that I have been working for in my life, it appears the majority of the time of many managers is spent on meetings. I could understand this if he or she is a high level manager who has a lot of responsibility. But it is often the case that even the low level manager does the same - always in a meeting. If you want to find him/her in his/her office, you really need a very good luck.</p>
<p>A previous coworker (who is not a manager) once complained that while so many people show up in meetings (especially when the project is new and hot), so few people would actually do the work when there is a need for somebody to work on something. In other word, there are well too many “professional meeting goers” in the corporate world.</p>
<p>Another annoying thing is the high volumes and frequency of emails. During work hours, you may receive an email every 10 minutes. because some manager may expect you to read and respond to his/her email within 10 to 20 minutes, you can not read the emails only at some certain time only.</p>
<p>Do these MBA programs really train their students to run a company like this?</p>
<p>busdriver, shaming others is not a “difference of opinion”. It’s disrespectful. Period. And I wasn’t shaming aries, I said it’s sad that s/he does that.</p>
<p>Maybe I don’t understand the argument at all, CPU, perhaps I’ve just been doing this for too long.</p>
<p>After 30 years of being an extreme minority in a high ego, very male dominated field, I still have conflicting views.</p>
<p>On one hand, I do see aries point of view, at least what I think it is. If you are going to be in one of these fields, go for it! Be assertive, aggressive, speak up, don’t put up with crap. Don’t allow anyone to trample on your dreams and make you feel worthless, and feel that you have to keep quiet. You are as smart and accomplished as any of them, don’t let anyone crush your self confidence, just keep on going and make it happen! They can say anything they want, but don’t let them see you lose your confidence, be afraid, or realize that they can make you feel bad or humiliate you. And never…ever… let them see you cry.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I don’t feel like swaggering any more. I don’t feel like proving myself, I already have. I don’t want to have to put up with crap any more, but sometimes it surprises me, here it is again, right in my face. I like to get along with everyone and make people feel good, and work as a team. My initial briefing is to say, forget about ego, let’s stay safe and out of trouble, if you see anything that bothers you, speak up. But sometimes I still have to put up with BS (or make a huge fuss about it, which I’m really not into), or squash someone, which I really hate doing. After all these years, I would like to just not have to deal with these male/female issues anymore. I really wish we were beyond this. But it is SO much better than it was. We all have horror stories that are long in the past.</p>
<p>Let me reiterate my ignored, overlooked, distorted point: women at HBS should not feel scared to raise their hands in class. </p>
<p>If they are, they need to get into a different field, because if they can’t talk in class (when class participation is half of their grade, no less!), they are going to get crushed in the boardroom. </p>
<p>This has nothing to do with being blowhards during meetings and everything to do with the fact that these women are not going to be leaders or meaningful contributors in a meeting - they are too passive. </p>
<p>Again, HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL women. Not poets, dancers, athletes, engineers, housewives, or middle school students; rather, students at the best business school in America.</p>
<p>Simple point that really struck a nerve, didn’t it? (Laughs)</p>
<p>Incidentally, Neda Navab agrees with me. After advising c-level executives, she wasn’t going to sit there passively in business school, afraid to solve an equation written on a blackboard.</p>
<p>In my job, there is no true, complete proof of skills as the work does not allow one person to quantify his/her individual contribution. Therefore the judgments of performance are equally subjective. You can establish credibility over time, but the minute you inject such subjectivity, you’re depending on the fairness of assessment by people who may be biased without having any idea they are. Just as the HBS profs didn’t correctly judge the participation of women until they brought in stenographers who could prove it, our management structure has a hard time without objective measures of individual contribution. I suspect many corporations are like this. </p>
<p>In this environment, I see a built in bias toward the self-promoter, professional maeeting-goers (what a great phrase, mcat!). Salary negotiation is hard if 1) you have no idea what your peers make, and 2) you have a hard time quantifying your individual contribution outside of the team structure. </p>
<p>I have a theory that the only thing that has saved modern business is email. You may not like getting a thousand emails a day. But sending a short email and being careful who you cc can be the best way to ensure that your ideas are attributed to you, the self-promoter you work for or with can’t claim them, and is a great way to eliminate the female, testosterone-free voice that so many men don’t hear.</p>
<p>As for meetings: in the boards and committees I sit on and/or run, I despise chatty people who waste everyone’s time with frivolous talk. I ask questions like “Does anyone have any ideas for X?”, and if Susie never has anything to say, I assume it’s because she does not have anything to say. </p>
<p>Query: what is the functional difference between a silent but talented person, and one who is dead weight in the group?</p>
<p>I’m not going to waste everyone’s time trying to figure out which adult needs to be sufficiently coddled to be a meaningful contributor. Email me, call me, grab me after the meeting if you are shy, but don’t sit there like a lump and later whine about your undiscovered, unnurtured talent.</p>
<p>In the end, you can either utilize your talent or not, listen or not. It’s up to the manager. </p>
<p>Are you really sure that HBS is the best in the world? There are different schools of thought on this and there are those who believe others are better, particularly some of thd global MBAs. </p>
<p>Either way, if they aren’t teaching their students to listen well? I’m not sure how great they really are. Stanford spends a lot of time on listening. What is more important in management? Listening or talking? </p>
<p>I already know what I think. What can YOU add? Talking seems pretty undergrad to me.</p>
<p>No one is suggesting that. Presumably, people are selected for boards and management because of the skills they bring to the position. “Undiscovered, unnurtured talent” is not likely to be at the table in the first place.</p>
<p>However, you point out the difference between business school and the real world–in the classroom settings described in the article, there are limited ways for students to make an impression and everyone is judged relative to everyone else in real time as they participate (or don’t) in classroom discussions. In the workplace there are all the other methods you mention, and more.</p>