Why I Now Believe the Glass Ceiling Is Real
stream.wsj.com
stream.wsj.com
I was expecting this "rock star" to exhibit sexism by promptly joining after he was told he'd be reporting under a make. But...no. He joined after significant alterations to the deal, including a bump in position and salary.
It might be gratifying for the author, but it's kind of irresponsible for her coach (whatever that is...) to claim something without any evidence at all.
We can't just publicize articles claiming we're victims of emotionally loaded, cultural taboos without any hard evidence whatsoever. Consider that if she hadn't explicitly put it in the title or the story itself, this story would not have signalled sexism to readers.
It's real, and it's a problem. Look at how Hilary Clinton was dealt with by critics and her handlers during her run for the presidential nomination. They were worried if she was feminine enough. I thought it was totally absurd, pointless, and even stupid, but I suspect it made sense to people in their late 50s and 60s.
In the same way, I'm kinda comfortable with the way Michelle Obama is treated by her supporters in the media - but if I stand back and really analyze it, it's patently sexist and offensive. Who cares about her domesticity? She was a CEO. What she brings to the table is being able to potentially work on policy or be a political operative. To people in their 40s (and maybe even 30s), though, this sexist treatment in the media makes us comfortable.
Even Laura Bush could have been an operative - but her party is old, and that just wouldn't fly. We're in the age of the power couple, and that's reality, but our biases and sexism will prevent this from being accepted for a decade or more.
I feel like I missed some steps here. It sounds like it went like this: Person agrees to job. Person signs agreement. Person declines job.[1] The male cofounder contacts this person and offers more money, a better position, and reporting to him.
Then we also learn the author had been considering leaving for a while.
So three things in play:
a) candidate was offered a much better deal to come on board[2] and
b) maybe the candidate picked up on her potential lack of commitment, even the fact that in her mind she was not sur about staying with the company. Perhaps he did this on a subconscious level - making this something that would be hard to put his finger on. Comments about her "energy level" seem to hint that this may be true as well; and
c) maybe the candidate had an issue with gender.
A couple of other revealing snips:
"As a co-founder, your role is to attract the best talent to compete in the market" and "The answer is not hiring quotas or prettier bathrooms. It’s strong leadership."
It seems to me that - regardless of gender - it is possible that the author does not or did not at the time possess these qualities. And that is a deal breaker to certain types of potential hires.
There are simply too many variables in this equation to conclusively state - as the author has done - that her gender was the obvious catalyst to his vacillation.[3]
[1] Do you really want to hire someone who breaks his given word so easily?
[2] Actually this means one of two things: he went back on his word to another company, or he never had another job lined up and was just playing them for a better deal. Either way: not someone I'd want at the top of my org .
[3] Alternatively there is information omitted from this account that would make the rationale more clear.
edit I can English.
“Right, well, it’s because you’re young and female.”
But I don't think that was the reason...
"After lengthy negotiations including a bump to VP, an increase in salary and signing bonus, the rock star senior director re-joined"
There we go. Money talks and bullshit walks.
My guess is that he just didn't feel comfortable reporting to a younger woman. Maybe he couldn't really figure it out, but he wasn't put into his comfort zone and backed off.
Dealing with a male, even a younger one, was probably easier. A bump in the title probably helped, too.
If that's the only evidence I'm allowed to read from the writer, then I'm missing how that could construed as sexism.
I, for example, am admittedly sexist. This doesn't mean I would never hire a woman, or even have a bias towards a man over a woman. What it does mean is, I believe with great certainty that men and women on average have tendencies. Males are not guaranteed to, but are statistically more likely to commit violent crime and other such things, so I can't understand how so many believe it is impossible that females are likewise statistically more likely to exhibit certain traits. And one tendency that in my experience women tend to exhibit more frequently than men is towards victimhood. Too often, if something doesn't turn out their way, they chalk it up to sexism, or some other conspiracy, when usually it's just simple bad luck.
In other words, if this person had even the slightest possibility of seeing it her way and coming out and apologizing for their actions and learning of their mistake, they certainly won't now. If anything the reaction will be to try to save face by telling everyone that she overreacted and is seeing sexism where there was none, regardless of the truth.
Hopefully we don't get people trying to make it into something it's not (a vendetta)
It's hard to not be ageist, but in this case I think there was some of that "she's half my age so why is she higher ranking than me" involved.
But you're definitely right that there's not much evidence here. I can still make assumptions no matter how much of an ass they make me.
What really rubs me the wrong way about this article is the way it comes off as her crying wolf. It's bad for the women that actually experience proper sexism that truly limits their potential. The way I read this article is that she had a bad read on how eager her candidate was to accept the position, low-balled him on the offer and he decided he would take a better offer somewhere else. Nothing about that is sexism and yet calling it sexism is hurting the cause.
1. younger person finds *rock star* older person
2. older person says yes, then says no, and says
well I am not impressed enough with you
3. company says report to a higher up, and we will
vp'gold you
4. younger person says sexism!
I think it's great she has a coach, honestly, I am not sure that's a privilege many of us have.
I don't know who this rock star was or where they ended up, but meebo, didn't that finish as an acqui-hire?
What about her skills? Her personality? Her past achievements?
And while the other one says "Older men don’t want to report to young females!", why is it the gender that pops out? What about young?
As for anger, I'll be directing mine at the Wall Street Journal for making it so I couldn't scroll with arrow keys: I almost gave up reading (and I'm glad I didn't)
Of course, in some places, rage is the only way to outdo the powers-that-be. But once you've outdone them, you must switch gears.
When he told her on the phone that he would not join because of HER, he cut off any possibility of her making him a better offer. So no, it was not him gunning for a better position, he was uncomfortable with her. Was that because she was young, or because she was female, or because of other facets of her personality, we will not know. But common sense pretty much points to a combination of young and female.
First. I was set off by the complete lack of evidence for the sexism case. The setting that assert sexism is in play is limited to:
[...] and she continued: “Right, well, it’s because you’re
young and female.”
Second. Although the storyline is not a convincing anecdote, it still has value. It is interesting to see that:
* It's not necessarily people higher in your company that will prevent a women from
getting promoted.
* It's not necessarily that women won't get hired for a higher position.
* If it seems the problem of sexism is solved for many, older individuals still form a
majority in the senior/execs layers, and their older generation may have sexist ways.
So there's a "perception" of female weakness which spurred the exploitation of said weakness and the female in question acquiesced? It may just be me, but this isn't about the glass ceiling, it's about the author perpetuating the stereotype that women are weak by doing exactly what the bias suggests.
Personally, I'd have send an email to the "company" who hired the "rockstar" and congratulated them with a little passive aggressive message of "I was quite surprised to hear he decided to join you after signing papers with us."
http://blogs.wsj.com/accelerators/2013/10/11/elaine-wherry-w...
The glass ceiling has always been real. It will continue to exist until the human race is extinct. Humans prejudice each other based on whatever traits they decide they don't like.
It sounds to me like he found a better job and just needed to give you an excuse.
On top of this, this was not your boss, this is someone you were trying to hire. You can turn down a job for any reason and it has nothing to do with the "glass ceiling".
Aren't we allowed to have opinions these days? If I don't like you and you just happen to be black, a woman, gay, etc..does it always have to be because of these traits..and not because you're an asshole?
I think there could be a lot of truth to what Sheryl Sandberg says about men's self-confidence and sense of entitlement (often to a fault) being a huge factor in the disparity in male/female leadership in tech.
No, she immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was her fault and she then sacrificed her own future with the company in order to get this person onto the team. Some time later her coach pointed out that she overlooked the possibility of an age/gender issue.
Why, I wonder, did you choose to completely mischaracterize the content of the article?
On top of this, this was not your boss, this is someone you were trying to hire. You can turn down a job for any reason and it has nothing to do with the "glass ceiling".
Backing out of an accepted job offer is a bit different from 'turning down a job'.
Aren't we allowed to have opinions these days? If I don't like you and you just happen to be black, a woman, gay, etc..does it always have to be because of these traits..and not because you're an asshole?
Nobody forced the candidate to accept the job offer before backing out of it on a rather flimsy pretext. He hadn't even started work yet, so I wonder what basis you think he had for deciding that his then-future boss was 'an asshole.'
That's a little unfair. The article's title frames the story in reference to the glass ceiling. That the grandparent comment used the word "immediately" does not change the fact that this entire article is about sexism; even if it was only explicitly mentioned at the end, it is the author's point that sexism caused these events. It's not as though she wrote an article detailing these events and then threw in what her coach said because it's thought-provoking -- she actually believes it, factual or not.
Backing out of an accepted job offer is a bit different from 'turning down a job'.
While this sentence is true, it doesn't answer what the grandparent said. You can turn down a job, back out of a job, quit a job - whatever, for whatever reasons you want, and they don't have to remotely involve the glass ceiling.
Nobody forced the candidate to accept the job offer before backing out of it on a rather flimsy pretext. He hadn't even started work yet, so I wonder what basis you think he had for deciding that his then-future boss was 'an asshole.'
Similar to how rejection letters from a company are almost always form letters and not personal details about your interview performance, I don't see why you'd expect anything other than a flimsy excuse from a candidate turning down the job.
And the grandparent wasn't saying the author is an asshole, just that it is an equally plausible explanation to her being a woman, young, gay, a dominatrix, diseased, whatever.
I get what you're saying, anigbrowl, but I have to disagree. I fully believe sexism exists in tech, and most of the stories on HN about it are probably the real deal. But this doesn't have enough evidence to give me that impression. If anything, I'd say it's more that he didn't want to be the subordinate of an unassertive young person (ageism), not a female.
The point I'm making above is that the grandparent poster seems to have some need to make up facts that are not present in the original story in order to justify his angry tone. In short, I think he has a giant chip on his shoulder.
What I think you and a lot of other posters are missing is the import of her paragraph about how diversity costs; when they were a freewheeling write-the-r-own-rules startup they could afford to blow off or ignore anyone who tried to leverage personal biases such as sexism, ageism, or anything really. Once they were funded and had investors whose expectations they had to satisfy, they were also obliged to deal with suppliers (of skills in this case) whose economic apparent economic benefit outweighed the ancillary costs in terms of team cohesion and founder status. She's pointing this out as an example of systematic discrimination - not in the casual but incorrect sense that most people use the term, involving some villainous type whose primary goal is to disenfranchise others, but as an unfortunate consequence of the laws of supply and demand.
If you need to hire a hotshot in some specialized field and the expected value of that person's economic contribution is greater than the cost of buying out a cofounder, then said cofounder is at the mercy of any personal biases that the hotshot might have. And being a hotshot is absolutely not correlated with any kind of superior moral development. I have met plenty of highly skilled people who were leaders in their field but who were markedly undeveloped in other respects, and indeed I could say the same of myself in some respects.
I had missed this, thanks for bringing it to my attention.
She's pointing this out as an example of systematic discrimination - not in the casual but incorrect sense that most people use the term, involving some villainous type whose primary goal is to disenfranchise others, but as an unfortunate consequence of the laws of supply and demand.
I can see how this makes sense, okay, fair point. In other words, a far more subtle type of discrimination based on the circumstances. I probably missed this because the title seemed a bit more straightforward.
As for everything you said about "hotshots", yeah, I agree.