Step aside men. Women are, once again, the new (old) powerhouses on the block. Every so often, mainstream media comes out with a slew of articles on how women are taking over the world and leaving helpless and hapless men in the dust. A recent cover story in Time magazine, "The Richer $ex," (March 26, 2012) told of how women will soon be the primary "breadwinners" in the United States.
This follows an article last year in The Atlantic touting "The End of Men," which suggested women's better attributes for today's economy (social intelligence, communication skills and focus) and men's poorer prospects would spell doom for the male of the species. The Economist piled on in a 1995 article about "The Male Dodo." Businessweek even described "The Perfect Husband" who cooks, cleans and raises the kids while his alpha wife is out slaying corporate dragons.
So what if all the currently overeducated women start taking over formerly male-dominated domains? Would that be so bad? Take the example of a corporation. My research of women-founded companies has shown some alluring differences from the typical male-founded and managed organizations. For starters, virtually every woman entrepreneur I've met practices active philanthropy. One woman CEO gives her employees several days off (with pay) each year so they can engage in some form of community building project. Another woman founder organizes book drives and beach cleanups where her entire staff participates. Several other company founders donate a percentage of their sales to local charities.
From a management perspective, women tend to prefer to operate in less hierarchical environments. Women typically want to share power with others, rather than lord it over others. Communication patterns are multidimensional and information flows up, down, sideways, backward and forward. Every woman-founded company I've seen holds "all hands on deck" meetings on a regular basis. The breadth of information disseminated at these meetings is open and all-encompassing -- from what new business is possibly coming in to profitability numbers on current projects.
Some of the most interesting differences I've found in women-designed organizations relates to the reward system. Women seem to have a unique sense of fairness. One female founder pays her people on an hourly basis, rather than a salary. Her reasoning is that since her employees are occasionally required to work more than 40 hours per week, she wanted them to be paid for all the hours they worked. Otherwise, on a salaried basis, every hour over 40 is money that goes into her pocket, not those of her employees.
Another woman who runs a talent placement service in the high-tech sector, decided to pay her employees 100 percent of the overtime hours she bills out to the client (rather than the standard practice of keeping a portion for her company). She feels it's bad enough that the engineers have to be away from their families, so they deserve the full benefit of the extra pay. But beyond that, each one of these women CEOs also offer frequent impromptu rewards, such as gift cards, public praise, dinners for two and other acts of kindness.
And finally, every woman entrepreneur I've studied places an enormous value on the culture of her organization. No surprise there, since the number one reason most women bail out of senior corporate jobs is to work in an environment that better reflects their own value system. In practice, that means hiring people for "fit" rather than just skills. Of course, most businesswomen would prefer both but the reality is; you can train the skills, but you can't give someone a personality transplant.
Perhaps, not surprisingly, the men who work for these women-designed organizations are also happy. Flextime, an open and fair appraisal and reward system, and a culture that values family time, camaraderie and teamwork are good for men too. So what kind of men will become dinosaurs in this new female-dominated business world? The command-and-control Mad Men of the past. Good riddance!
This post first appeared on Forbes.com.
Follow Dr. Sasha Galbraith on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@sashagalbraith
To the question at hand: If our corporations were run according to women's culture we would have unending drama in a seething nest of vipers. This is because, as I have experienced it over and over again, women are pretty good at conflict avoidance but very, very bad at conflict resolution. Most men settle easily into rank hierarchies once the dust has settled, women nurse their resentments and grudges forever.
Oh, and by the way, you're obnoxious.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-sasha-galbraith/female-dominated-business-world_b_1399677.html?ref=women&ir=Women
They would probably be about as good, maybe better, than the men they replace except for one important thing - creation.
It has been men who have theorized, designed, built, manufactured, and created civilization as we know it: roads, bridges, buildings, autos, aerospace, electricity, air conditioning, computers, medicine, law, philosophy, mathematics. And it is largely men who do the dirty work of maintaining those systems.
Historically, women have simply not contributed much along those lines, (though they have been lifted to ever higher standards of living by them).
So the real question is not "can women run big companies?" but are women creative enough to grow civilization, improve it, reach higher? Do women have it within themselves to guide, inspire, envision new science, technology, mathematics?
Or would it be a case of: "Men build castles, women decorate them".
Unless of course you are looking through the eyes of the coal miner.
Women leaders? Why not. Half the work at the same pay with fungible deadlines. When the job HAS to get done you'll still need to call the men in.
Businesses exist to make money, and they will do everything in their power to do so.
Nothing will change. The man that runs a business successfully has the same qualities as the woman that runs a business successfully ... Greed, with a hint of corruption.
And from my observations of many years in a variety of businesses, quite true.
What is unique about their sense of fairness? Your sentence doesn't really say anything.
A couple of examples probably shouldn't be extrapolated to characterize all women. For every positive anecdote about female entrepreneurs you cite, I could give you a male counterpart.
Does that kill your uniqueness theory?
Having worked for and with women managers, as well men, I can honestly say I have seen just as many obnoxious and not-so-wonderful women in charge as I have men.
I suppose it's nice to think that if women ran the world everything would be better, but power and money can get to anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_Sanction_of_1713
The Maria Theresa thaler is still issued and currency in some parts of the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Theresa_thaler
I have a son and daughter, got custody of both after my divorce. One thing I gave my daughter was a good education, college etc and the concept of not ultimately depending on a man for her bread and butter. Her name is Therese Victoria, my wife and I named her after two woman in history that we both liked. We pronounce her name Ter-raze. It's spelling and pronunciation varies.
Why can not we just have equality and respect for one another?