FRANK TALK ABOUT WHAT WE DO WITH OUR LIVES

Archive for the ‘Chats’ Category

Back and To On Leaning In (Part 3)

In Chats on March 19, 2013 at 1:35 pm

Editorial note: this is the third and final installment of an email exchange about Sheryl Sandberg’s book, ‘Lean In.’ The discussion started off  here, and the middle part is here. Thank you to all who chimed in by using the comments function (below each post), or by joining various discussions on Facebook.

From: Kate Gace Walton
Date: Tues, Mar 19, 2013 at 7:17 AM
Subject: “Lean In”
To: Lindsay Moran

******

Hi Lindsay,

Those are constructive questions, and I’m glad you asked them. In large part because I’m not the sort to lead a revolution (43 years old and not a single uprising!), I’m inclined to give those who do stick their necks out the benefit of the doubt, at least at the outset. But you’re right: walking the walk matters, and going forward it will be interesting to hear more about the specific workplace policies Sheryl supports as part of effecting meaningful change. It’ll also be interesting to see whether her message gets beyond a relatively narrow audience to reach, and motivate, a larger base.

Before I sign off, one last thing: thank you for having this chat with me. Not everyone would. It’s very easy to be labeled a “hater” just for raising questions. I appreciate that you barreled forward nonetheless. I, too, despise “The Mommy Wars,” so much so that last year I was moved to write this mini-rant. In that piece, I argued that these so-called “wars” aren’t even real: “A few limelight-seekers aside, stay-at-home moms and moms who work outside the home are not in fact at war with one another.” I still think this is basically true, and that the media manufactures way more conflict, or at least a cruder version of the conflict, than real people routinely experience. But I also get that these issues are very sensitive, and that substantive tensions do exist. So, again, it was good of you to enter the fray.

Bye for now,

Kate

******

From: Lindsay Moran
Date: Tues, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:05 PM
Subject: “Lean In”
To: Kate Gace Walton

Kate –

Our conversation forced me to a) finish reading Sheryl’s book and b) consider it through a lens I might not have otherwise—that of women in the corporate world, be it large companies or small. So, please; I thank YOU!

Your comment about not having led a revolution made me think, “Neither have I, dammit.” Well, there’s one for the bucket list. Announcing one’s intention to lead a revolution is brave indeed, and I admire Sheryl for that, and for the attempt to enact meaningful and positive change for women in the corporate world.

More than anything, I enjoyed your “mini-rant” on the mythical Mommy Wars. (Anyone who drives a mini-van—no idea if you do?—is entitled to mini-rants like that on a daily basis.) But seriously, I think you’re right. Interesting how the media has played up the Anne-Marie Slaughter-versus-Sheryl Sandberg antagonism, which is probably non-existent? No idea, but my guess is that the two women likely have mutual respect for one another and their (albeit differing) POVs.

BTW, I did a sort of random poll of women in my community about Lean In—the book and the movement. I would describe those queried (maybe a dozen-or-so over the past two weeks, some individually and some as a group) as largely upper middle class; all college-educated; some stay-at-home moms; and a variety of working moms—that is, some full-time, some part-time, some work from home, etc. None was that familiar with Sheryl Sandberg—which surprised me of course; one woman had just seen her on the cover of Time, and another said, “Wasn’t she on 60 Minutes?” but the rest had never heard of her or of Lean In.

Obviously none had read the book, but I asked them about their willingness to and interest in participating in Lean In circles. There was sort of a communal groan…and a lot of, “Um, yeah, I don’t have time for that.” When I suggested that such discussion circles might offer valuable negotiating advice for women, as is contained in the book, there was some more groaning; a few eye-rolls; and one woman said, “I don’t feel like I need that.”

May or may not be true; probably we all could benefit from negotiating advice—especially from the likes of someone as successful as Sheryl. But I offer my (very unscientific) research just as something that was anecdotally telling. They certainly scoffed at me when I said I was engaged in an online discussion with one of my college friends about the book, the movement, and the controversy surrounding it. “Um, what controversy?” and “WHO has time for THAT?” (I strongly suspect that they might consider me an Ivy League tool, who has nothing better to do than invent non-existent controversies that are of zero interest to the bulk of American women.) There is some controversy, right? Or is that just the way the media is playing it?

Anyway, as I said at the onset of this discussion, I’m not a “joiner,” and also not sure I really feel this is my battle to fight, but I will watch with curiosity and interest to see how the movement grows and evolves. I’ve always considered myself a quiet feminist—that is, I don’t talk a lot about women’s rights, but I expect and demand equal treatment in all facets of my own life.

I remember when I was in 5th grade, we took a family trip to Europe, mostly because my dad was headed there on business. During this trip, we got to take a hovercraft ride across the English Channel because my father was involved in the design of that particular craft. About halfway across, my father asked my brother if he would like to view the rest of the ride from the cockpit. I was terribly hurt, cried to myself, and later let my mother know how upset I was not to be included in the visit to the cockpit with my brother.

Years later, my mother told me she had never ever seen my father so upset as when he found out my reaction to being excluded, from something he had mistakenly thought I’d have no interest in. He (and my mother) had gone to great lengths to raise us in a “gender-neutral” environment, and he had always taught me to believe there was nothing I couldn’t do. Like Sheryl, I was tremendously lucky to have been born into a household where my voice was equally as heard as my brother’s, and hopes and aspirations for me were just as high. I think many of us who went to school together enjoyed the benefits of such supportive upbringings.

I guess this is my way of admitting that even though Sheryl’s book was not particularly inspiring to me personally, perhaps it will be for many other women. And that would be a very good thing.

Lindsay

Back and To On Leaning In (Part 2)

In Chats on March 17, 2013 at 7:39 pm

Editorial note: this is the second installment of an email exchange about Sheryl Sandberg’s book, ‘Lean In.’ The first part of the discussion is here. (If you’re growing weary, take heart—we’re wrapping this up after the next round!)

From: Kate Gace Walton
Date: Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 9:01 AM
Subject: “Lean In”
To: Lindsay Moran

Hi Lindsay,

I agree wholeheartedly that we, as a society, need broader definitions of ambition and success.

As you know, my husband Chris and I used to live in Hong Kong, thousands of miles away from our families. Now, we live near Seattle, on the same small island as my parents, my brother and his family, my brother’s mother-in-law, and my mother-in-law, who recently moved here from Montana. (It’s hysterical—after 13 years of dating a Taiwanese-American and breaking up in part over cultural differences, his family lives strewn across three continents and four countries, and my family ended up in a traditional Chinese set-up: three generations agitating each other on a near-daily basis.)

One could argue that Chris and I limited our career options by making the move to Bainbridge. One could also argue that we’ve helped our careers, because the support network we have here makes it easier to devote time to our jobs. In reality, both statements are true, but to me anyway, they also miss the point: one of my ambitions, truly, was for our children to know their grandparents well. That’s now the case; our kids, ages 5 and 3, have inside jokes with our parents, and to me that feels like success.

Coming back to the book, though, I don’t sense that Sheryl would take issue with my personal notions of success. As ready as I was, initially, to take offense at her message, which I feared might be very “judgy” and prescriptive, I ended up taking lines like this at face value: “This book makes the case for leaning in, for being ambitious in any pursuit. And while I believe that increasing the number of women in positions of power is a necessary element of true equality, I do not believe that there is one definition of success or happiness.”

After seeing this, and many similar statements, my hackles were smoothed, and I felt like I could read Lean In as I would any book—taking from it what I can use, and then just getting on with the business of charting my own course. And there were things that I felt I could use. In one of my first jobs, I was such a weak negotiator that the HR department came to me six months after I joined the company and informed me that they had to double my salary, just to make it conform with their standard compensation schedule. I wouldn’t want that to happen to either my daughter or my son, so I’d recommend that they read the advice of successful negotiators, Sheryl included.

Aside from the over-arching message to be more assertive than might feel comfortable (something I definitely need to hear more than I think you do!), another part of the book that “spoke to me” personally was Chapter 8: “Make Your Partner a Real Partner.” Chris and I have a relatively egalitarian marriage: we both work full-time outside of the home, and we split household chores pretty evenly. Reading that chapter, though, I was reminded that I could ease my own stress significantly, without adding to Chris’ stress much at all, simply by recognizing that he’s just as capable with the kids as I am, often more so. (Case in point: our daughter Anna was having a really hard time getting to sleep one night; while I tossed and turned, worrying that maybe daycare was a bad choice for her, Chris walked down the hall with a black Sharpie pen, drew a small dot on the beam of her bunk bead, and told her to stare at it for as long as she could. She was asleep in about three minutes.) Honestly, the man is a child-rearing Ninja, and I would do well to remember that more often.

So that’s some of what I, personally, got out of the book. That said, I’m not much of a joiner either, and I’m way more preoccupied with the broader question that Work Stew normally tackles—namely, how any of us figure out what to do with our lives. So although I have a positive take on the book, I can’t see myself participating in the follow-on “Circles.” I don’t have a problem with them if they work for other people; they just don’t sound like my cup of tea.

I’m curious, though…when you asked, “Why do I feel judged?”—did you mean judged by the book, or judged more broadly?

Also, since the issue of target audience has come up—in our exchange, in the comments, and in lots of good writing about the book—what do you make of the criticism that Lean In fails to speak to the vast majority of working women, women who, unlike us, do not have the luxury of choice and are mainly just struggling to get by?

My view on this: I think it’s fair to criticize the media as a whole, for putting too much emphasis on issues that are arguably specific to the well off (and, yes, irony noted: Work Stew, too, needs to get on to other issues ASAP). But so long as an author doesn’t claim to have the Full Answer for Everyone, I don’t think it’s fair to fault any one person for choosing to focus where they feel they have some expertise and can make a difference. After all, there are only so many hours in a day, right?

Kate

*****

From: Lindsay Moran
Date: Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 11:04 AM
Subject: “Lean In”
To: Kate Gace Walton

You’re right to ask why I posed the question, “Why do I feel judged?” since Sheryl herself makes the case for women being ambitious in any pursuit and the truth is that, personally, I don’t really feel judged (so good on you for calling me on that!)…but what if I were a woman armed with two Ivy League degrees who chose as her “pursuit” full-time motherhood, or homeschooling, both perhaps the extreme form of Stepping Back or Leaning Out? Is that fine? Or would that be a badge signifying lack of ambition and self-confidence?

Again, let me reiterate that I agree wholeheartedly with the premise of the book—that women should ask for more—but the debate stemming from the “book-as-a-movement” hearkens back to the Mommy Wars, a large-scale public catfight (more like a brawl actually), which I found destructive, depressing and, ultimately, boring.

It’s frustrating that efforts to work toward equality seem always to devolve into a bitter debate among the ranks of those most affected—in this case, women. None of this is Sheryl Sandberg’s fault or intent, obviously, but it’s part of what makes me hesitant to align myself with the Lean In movement because—no matter the leader’s intentions—it does somehow feel exclusionary and divisive.

Re. the criticism that Lean In leaves out the vast majority of working women who are struggling to get by, as opposed to women like us who have the luxury of making career choices, Sheryl is right to point out that the book and the advice she offers is “not for everyone.” And why should it be? Except that Lean In is presented not just as a book, but as a movement, a “revolution that will occur one family at a time.” It’s hard to lead a movement or revolution without vast ranks of support from “below.” And I do think much of the advice Sheryl offers is not particularly applicable to working class women, single mothers, women in the armed forces, women who do not have a male partner, etc.

For sure, Sheryl has, on occasion, been the recipient of undue criticism—and  ridiculous questions—from the press, questions that a man in her position would never have to face. I personally loved it when, during her 60 Minutes interview, Sheryl countered the “all of this is easy for you to say” criticism with the apt retort: “It is easy for me to say. That’s why I’m saying it.”

However, I also would like to have heard some statistics and data that prove how Lean In is being implemented at Facebook, where Sheryl is second in command. How many women are managers there? How do their salaries compare to their male counterparts? Are all the women there afforded the latitude to leave work at 5:30, without that reflecting any lack of commitment to their jobs?

One of my favorite champions of women is the founder of the Bin Laden unit, former CIA analyst and author Michael Scheuer, who staffed his office almost entirely with women. According to Scheuer, “Women have an exceptional knack for detail, for seeing patterns and understanding relationships, and they also, quite frankly, spend a great deal less time telling war stories, chatting, and going outside for cigarettes than the boys. If I could have put up a sign saying, ‘No boys need apply,’ I would’ve done it.” I love that Scheuer “put his money where his mouth is” in terms of actively recruiting women for this critical branch of the (very male-dominated) intelligence apparatus. The female-heavy Bin Laden unit ultimately led the CIA to its greatest success of this century. So I guess I would like to see how Sheryl is making Leaning In possible—and even profitable—for women at Facebook? (And I definitely should add: all those women in the Bin Laden unit likely were pulling 12-15 hour days. There’s not a doubt in my mind that compromises to their personal and family lives were made; and no amount of leaning in—or speaking up for their particular needs—could or would get around that.)

Let me close by saying there’s nothing at all I oppose about Sheryl Sandberg or her message. I applaud it at every turn. I assume that people like you and me are part of her target audience—several women I know in defense, security, law enforcement and other sectors, when queried had never heard about her or the Lean In movement. So I pose these “devil’s advocate” questions in large part as a way of trying to determine if and how we can create a movement that truly does empower women from all sides of the socioeconomic spectrum and of differing advantages, ambitions, and aims.

*****

Editorial note: The third and final part of this discussion has now been posted; it can be found here.

Back and To On Leaning In

In Chats on March 16, 2013 at 9:09 am

The following is an email chat about Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg’s high-profile book ‘Lean In.’ In the future, Work Stew might host similar discussions about other topics; it all depends on how this one goes.

Joining me (Kate Gace Walton, the editor of this site) in this inaugural effort is Lindsay Moran, a writer, former spy, good friend, and generous contributor to Work Stew. Future chats might involve more participants; for now, others are invited to weigh in via the comments function (below).

From: Kate Gace Walton
Date: Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:41 PM
Subject: “Lean In”
To: Lindsay Moran

Hi Lindsay,

I’ll just start by saying that the last two weeks have been exhausting. Before reading Lean In, I joked on Facebook that a title more likely to resonate with me, personally, might be “Lean In, Gasp with Horror, and Run the Other Way.” Even though I work in the business world (helping to run a small company), I have a strong distaste for certain aspects of Corporate America. The exhortation to “Lean In” struck me initially as something you might see on a motivational poster, and for whatever reason, I react very badly to motivational posters.

Not long after making my glib comment, though, I was filled with regret. So many of the attacks on Sheryl Sandberg seemed so personal and so mean. No matter how I feel about the corporate world, I didn’t want to play any part in the so-called “backlash.” Like you, I know Sheryl Sandberg from college. I don’t know her well, but from the few interactions we’ve had, I believe her to be completely earnest in her desire to effect positive change. I respect what she’s accomplished, and I think she should be applauded for trying to help others. I’m sure it mattered to no one but me, but two days after my initial post, I found myself apologizing for commenting on a book without reading it first. I felt like an idiot for having done so.

I then decided to step off the emotional roller coaster I’d been riding; instead, I just buckled down and read the book. Frankly, I was surprised by how much I liked it. I think it contains a lot of good advice for anyone trying to navigate the corporate world, and the memoir-lover in me appreciated that it included a handful of good stories from Sheryl’s own experiences. My big question is how broadly will it resonate? To me, it seems to speak most powerfully to a) women b) who have, or want to have, children c) with a male partner d) while also aiming for a leadership role e) in a traditional corporate setting. Points a), b), and c) apply to me, and perhaps this is why I found much of the book to be thought provoking and useful, on a personal level. Points d) and e) do not apply to me, so in other ways it wasn’t a perfect fit.

What’s your take so far?

Kate

*****

From: Lindsay Moran
Date: Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 6:00 AM
Subject: “Lean In”
To: Kate Gace Walton

Ahh Kate – I am brought back to those college days when you and I were preparing for our final exam in the religion class “The Bible,” without having actually read, er, the Bible. I will admit to not having read all of Sheryl’s new book, but I did watch her on 60 Minutes, which I guess is sorta like you and I watching Monty Python’s Life of Brian before that final exam.

So the thoughts expressed in this exchange are definitely my take “so far.” The initial attacks—yes, both personal and mean—from important female voices, like Maureen Dowd of The New York Times (who also admitted to not having read the book) were disappointing to say the least. While entertaining to read, they were snarky, glib and, I believe, said a lot more about the women writing them than about Sheryl herself. I felt guilty—almost like part of a mean-girl conspiracy—reading some of the initial “backlash.”

That said, to be honest, if it were not for committing to this online discussion with you, I likely would not have bought (or attempted to read) Lean In. Why? It’s not because I don’t agree with Sheryl’s basic premise—that women should ask for more—from their partners, professional managers, etc. It’s just that I have precious little time—like many women, I am struggling to balance my professional endeavors and ambitions with the need (and desire!) to devote my time and energy toward my kids.

My reticence to Lean In to this particular movement stems from the fact that I have never ever ever EVER! wanted to be successful in the corporate world. And while I applaud the efforts of Sheryl (and others) who are paving the way for ambitious women in their paths, I don’t think these ladies need me or my vocal support. Of all the worthy causes competing for my time, energy and commitment—like global warming; violence against women and children; girls’ education; counterterrorism; medical research for fatal diseases that have claimed close friends; etc.—this is NOT one that “speaks to me.” In short—nothing against it; it’s just not my thing.

An analogous example, for me, is the choice NOT to join the PTA. As a kid, my mother was always PTA president, my father was always the Boy Scout Troop leader, and yet my husband and I have shied away from that sort of involvement. Simply put, we are not joiners. Also, we live in an area where you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting some mom (or dad) willing to go full throttle in these organizations; and so I feel the needs of my kids, and their classmates, are in good hands; just as I feel the “needs” of corporate women struggling to break through the glass ceiling are in the able and committed hands of people like Sheryl Sandberg. Likewise, PTA meetings—to me—represent precious time in the evenings that I cannot spend with my kids. I feel the same about Lean In circles—just not really interested.

Does my aversion toward PTA make me an uninvolved parent? Does my ambivalence about jumping on the Lean In bandwagon make me a less ambitious, less successful woman?

I don’t think so, and it bothers me that any voiced uncertainty about joining “the movement” smacks of women-versus-women backlash. I don’t like that one’s feminist creds are cast into doubt if you don’t fully embrace the Lean In movement.

Sheryl writes, “We hold ourselves back in ways both big and small, by lacking self-confidence, by not raising our hands, and by pulling back when we should be leaning in.” I have no doubt that—to someone in the corporate world—my professional life looks like a woman who did not “lean in.” Since the births of my sons, in 2005 and 2006, I have cobbled together a variety of “professions”—writing, teaching, consulting—never making much money, but always afforded time with my boys, as well as time to pursue personal and professional projects, and causes that are meaningful to me. While I’ve not leaned in to the corporate world, that has been a choice, not a resignation.

Sheryl writes, “If I had to embrace a definition of success, it would be that success is making the best choices we can…and accepting them.” For sure, I feel I’ve done that. So why do I feel judged?

Because, I deliberately did NOT Lean In. In fact, I made a choice to…Lean Out? In 2003, I left a male-dominated professional milieu in which I was a rising star—at the CIA, I was being groomed as a future manager—to follow a different path. Does that mean I am not ambitious? That I held myself back? That I lack self-confidence?

I don’t think so. I decided that the CIA was not an organization in which I wanted to lean in and/or move up.

Personally, I think the time has come for a broadening of the definitions of ambition and success—for both men and women. My husband is a freelance photographer who, like me, has made adjustments and compromises in his professional life in order to maximize his time and commitment to our family. If he were a woman, he might be accused of lacking ambition—saying no to travel assignments, holding down the fort as a full-time dad when I’ve been away from home. As two “freelancers” trying to raise a family, yes, we face near constant financial uncertainty. We are both stratospherically far from the glass ceiling, and yet I consider us successful…constantly leaning in—to the particular life we have created together.

Lindsay

*****

Note from Kate: Round 2 of this exchange is now up and can be found here.