FC NOW: The Fast Company Weblog
January 26, 2005
Bully Pulpit
The debate over Harvard president Larry Summers's inflammatory remarks about women's ability in math and science continues to rage, now expanding beyond his attitude toward women to his generally abrasive management style.
Summers defends his often humiliating and debate-stifling treatment of underlings as just a way of engaging in debate. Only pansies, he thinks, aren't tough enough to defend their ideas when under attack. This sort of Management by Devil's Advocacy neglects one thing: the imbalance of power that always gives Summers the upper hand. I was reminded of Marshall Goldsmith's recent column about coaching a company CEO whose fondness for rough-and-tumble debate was driving his employees nuts.
Summers's defenders, however, applaud his willingness to take the heat if that's what it takes to shake up a smug and self-satisfied organization. Indeed, Harvard's Board of Governors knew Summers was, uh, prickly when they hired him.
Where's the line between being provocative and being a bully? Can this type of management ever actually be good for an organization, or does it invariably lead to organizational dysfunction?
Posted by Linda Tischler at January 26, 2005 11:05 AM | Category: leadership |
4 Comments
ADVERTISEMENT
FC NOW MENU
NEWSLETTERS
FC NOW CATEGORIES
FC READS
Being strong and abrasive in a bi-lateral relationship is acceptable when debating ideas. However in the situation stated and unfortunately in many situations where a superior is involved, there are no bi-lateral relationships. By definition, management or executives have a relationship which puts them at an unequal playing field. If you want true and honest dialogue to acheive the heart of an issue, ask questions. Questions open the door to ideas faster and more smoothly than attacks. Yes a person will defend an idea (all the while getting hot under the collar) but ultimately enough attack on anyone by a superrior leaves them with a decision to defend everyday, leave or punch the bully in the face. None the less, none of these situations ulimately benefit the confidence of the underling and thereby ultimately doesn't benefit the organization. Questions on the other hand does two things: 1. Plays on the best in people... their belief in themselves and 2. Forces the person to think about the concept rather than Karate moves.
Ask questions. Don't assert objections.
Only pansies aren't tough enough to defend their ideas if they're under attack...is this the same guy that backtracked and tried to convince us that he didn't mean any of what he said about women not being as good as men in math and sciences? Yeah right.
Atleast he had the courage to say what he believed in.
Back tracking only means you live to fight another day.
Go get em' Summers.
Perhaps the heart of the issue is right there in front of us, the real reason why there aren't more women in the sciences: because our culture encourages men with abrasive management styles like Summers while quashing women who manage in the same way. Think about the labels society would use about a woman that acted like Summers; even this post labels his behavior, but not Summers. Were a woman to act this way, SHE would receive the label and not her behavior.
This insufficiency of women manifests itself not only in the sciences, but across the boardrooms of America; there's a rate nearly parallel between the number of women who make it to the boardroom as there is women who graduate with degrees in math and science. Or for that matter, government -- why are only 13% of our Senators women? (I'll harken back to FastCompany's article last year, "Where are the Women?", although I think it only scratched the surface and failed to really "see" the magnitude of the challenge.)
This is a cultural challenge; it starts early, down in grade school. We lose women to the sciences when they are in late grade school, primarily because of reinforcement of negative social messages (it's not acceptable to be a geek if you're an 11-year-old girl, but being a Britney Spears-lookalike is fine), or excess reinforcement of other messages (be the next Mia Hamm, spend all your extra time on sports). I see this at close-range, with my own 11-year-old daughter (who is gifted in math and science, I might add). There is constant social pressure to be beautiful, be a jock, be popular at that age, all to the detriment of being successful in the sciences. By the time puberty and hormones hit, it's too late.
Men like Summers ought to do a little role-playing. Try dealing with all that social pressure while the education system around fails to see that you're equally capable *but different*, no matter that you and your kind represent 50% of students. Note Nancy Stueber's testimony before a Senate Subcommittee on this very issue: http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/072402steuber.pdf -- it's a cultural issue, not necessarily a hardcoded gender issue.
I strongly suspect the insufficiency of women costs our bottom line as well; every time I get a "blue screen of death" on my computer I wonder whether there were enough women on the design team that created the software or the hardware. Or whenever I run into a usability issue on any product; were there women on that design team, too? What will it take before we -- our entire culture -- realize that the genders are different but complementary, that failing one gender only hurts the other as well?
I have a lot more to say about this matter, but I've been working on this for most of my life, being a woman. There's simply a lot more to say and to do. As the mother of a daughter gifted in science and math, I know it's going to be one hell of hard slog ahead, keeping her away from the plentitude of people like Summers. God help his daughter.