From the category archives:

Hypocrisy

The (Feminist) Business Bloggers’ Lament

by cv harquail on January 26, 2010

In the past several weeks I’ve been working with two different groups of businesswomen, developing social-media based movements to advance social change in and around the workplace.

Conversations with these women have been intellectually challenging, inspiring and empowering. And they have also been oddly confessional, about a problem that — in my opinion — it’s time to bring out into the open.

A Personal Authenticity Problem

These women can’t be authentic, and can’t be their most powerful, because they are hiding something. These powerful, dynamic, visionary women are hiding their concerns about equality between women and men. These businesswomen are hiding their own feminist identities.

Here’s how the confession the conversation breaks down:

First, we get the fears:

  • I don’t want to bring up women’s concerns when talking to potential clients about this business issue.   If I raise it as a women’s issue, or — worse– a mom’s issue, it’s treated as a special interest instead of a business concern.
  • I don’t want people to think I’m “only” talking about women’s issues, that I’m a one-trick expert.
  • I don’t want clients to think that I’m bringing up women’s situation because as a woman I’m self-interested and/or because I have an axe to grind.

Then, we get the reflections on experience:

  • Any time I bring this up as a woman’s issue, it gets marginalized and put in a corner because women are a “special case”.
  • Any time I bring this up as a women’s concern, people disregard it and tell me that this isn’t a business issue.

Then, we get the Authenticity Problem:

  • I don’t want my silence to be perceived as me not being feminist.
  • don’t want my silence about women’s concerns to be perceived as me not being smart enough to see the gendered dynamics, differences and issues that will prevent this business program from being successful.
  • I don’t want my silence to be perceived as collusion.

201001251206.jpg

But silent we are.

After a few (female and male) colleagues have said to me “I didn’t know you were a feminist,” I realized that I’d maybe dialed back my own authenticity a little too much.

And, I’ve wondered: What am I doing that is chronically inauthentic, if this is how some people see me? (Alternative analysis: they don’t know what a feminist looks like.)

Okay, I’ll admit it: I’ve hedged, myself, on this very blog. Many times. Over and over. Afraid people will dismiss AuthenticOrganizations if/when I drop the f-bomb.

Why is this Inauthenticity a problem?

By not speaking as feminist business people, about women’s issues, gender dynamics, and other intersectional concerns about diversity and inclusion that are important to the business initiatives they lead, none of these women gets to participate in an authentic way.

And, the very initiatives they are advocating are feminist issues — issues where a feminist analysis and the feminist agenda would make a big difference in what goals are set and what kind of social change is achieved. Said one of these businesswomen:

Sexism itself prevents us from covering these topics, even though we know we can’t put this initiative onto already “sexist “organizational cultures, and hope that we will still achieve the change we seek.

Not thinking as feminists, not reminding ourselves to use a feminist lens, actually impedes our effectiveness as business people, as strategists, as consultants, and as leaders.

So, what should we do?

If you're interested in this issue, please subscribe to my RSS feed. Or, use the blue box (upper right) to get an emailed update. Join the conversation below...

{ 10 comments }

In the decade since its release, the movie Office Space has dramatized the corporate best of work-life dystopia.

In Office Space, we’ve got the Lumberg, the red stapler, the TPS Reports, a bad case of the Mondays, a little flair, and of course, “the Bobs”. Oh, the Bobs, those clueless, bumbling, omniscient consultants from corporate who come in to do a little downsizing.

Such innocent times, when we thought Office Space was a cynical view of the corporate world, and we laughed.

Now, we have another cinematic view of corporate reality: Up In The Air.

Up In The Air is not actually cynical- it’s realistic. Up In The Air shows us something very real about employer-employee relationships. And it’s a reality that’s neither funny nor easy to watch.

201001210617.jpg

Up In The Air: Corporatized Layoffs

If you’ve seen Up In The Air, you’ve seen the latest version of corporatized layoffs. Corporatized layoffs take the humanity out of human resource management.

A lot has changed in the ten years since the Bobs demonstrated state-of-the-art termination practices. Back in Office Space, the Bobs came over form HR to analyze work flow and to hold the managers’ hands while they executed the lay offs of their employees and colleagues.

Now, in Up In The Air, the layoff process has been outsourced to the specialist-for-hire, Ryan Bingham, a “termination engineer”.

New Realities of Corporatized Layoffs, as seen in Up In The Air.

Up In The Air dramatizes for us 6 new realities of the layoff process.

1. Layoffs are so common that they have spawned their own growth industry, complete with skilled, well-paid termination experts.

Bingham doesn’t just lay people off. Rather, he’s a “termination engineer“. A specialist. In a well-cut suit and a silk tie from the “Shoppes at Terminal C”. Unlike the belt-and-suspenders dorkiness of the Bobs, Bingham is real business class talent — smooth and skilled as he wields the hatchet.

Who knew we’d gotten so good at this, at the act of telling employees we don’t want them anymore?

2. Organizations and their managers have deftly insulated themselves from the unpleasant experience of laying people off. This insulation allows these organizations to be genuinely fake, to say one thing and do another without any ambivalence or embarrassment.

By outsourcing their termination practice to a consultancy, the organization removes any manager or corporate representative from the process. There is no one from the company who has to explain the decision to the ex-employee, and no one from the company to take responsibility for the layoff decisions.

Structurally, Bingham, is insulated from any responsibility for these axed employees. He didn’t create the problems that lead to the layoffs or make the choices about whom to lay off. Emotionally, Bingham is also insulated. He shares no common culture, no corporate history, no personal relationship with the people losing their jobs. He has no reason at all (apart from some basic humanity) to feel guilty or conflicted about what he is there to do.

This structural and psychic distance make it possible for Bingham to be genuinely fake. For all those the platitudes, Bingham really means what he says. And he also doesn’t mean what he says, because no part of the experience actually touches him.

Similarly, the structural set up prevents the organization and its managers even from seeing the damage that their behavior is causing. The organization and its managers are free to claim that they care about employees while laying them off.

3. In corporatized layoffs, no one can hear you scream. [click to continue…]

{ 3 comments }

Mockulation ®: Regulating Wall Street Using the Psychology of Public Mockery

December 31, 2009

What does it take to rein in the outrageous compensation of CEOs? The absurd bonuses of Investment Bankers? The “bail us out so we can award ourselves bonuses”-behavior characterizing Wall Street this year?
Do we need more transparency? More shareholder oversight? More whistle-blowing? More government regulation?
How about just a little bit more public mockery?

Reflecting on soon-to-be-published [...]

Read the full article →

Can Walmart Earn the Girl Scouts’ Good Citizenship Award?

August 14, 2009

You don’t earn a merit badge for Good Citizenship by picking on the Girl Scouts. But what if Wal-mart wanted to?
Commenters here and on other blogs that picked up my story that Wal-mart has chosen to compete with the Girl Scouts by knocking off the Girls Scouts’ two most popular cookies have criticized Wal-mart for [...]

Read the full article →

Which is preferable, Layoffs or Alternatives to Layoffs?

May 4, 2009

My esteemed colleague and fellow Michigan PhD alum, Aneil Mishra, is a well-known expert on the ’softer’ organizational affects of downsizing and layoffs: morale, commitment and trust. Writing today about furloughs at GM on his blog Total Trust, Aneil mentions that
"In our research on downsizing, we’ve found that across-the-board cost cutting like this (specifically, pay [...]

Read the full article →

Which is worse: Being “Authentic & Bad” or being “Bad for Being InAuthentic”?

April 30, 2009

Before reading any further, let’s take a poll:
[poll id=2] [poll id= 3]
How do our results compare to the findings of a more comprehensive annual survey of the reputations of US corporations?
"America’s Most Least Reputable Companies"
Reputation Institute just released its annual survey that determines the nation’s most respected companies. (The survey is summarized [...]

Read the full article →

The Titanic’s Band: Responsibility at the Rocky Mountain News

March 4, 2009

The Rocky Mountain News, one of Denver, Colorado’s two daily newspapers, closed on Feb 27 after nearly 150 years of operation. While the print edition is completely gone, and the signs were removed from the building just two days after the closing was announced, the Rocky Mountain News online edition is (still) up, running [...]

Read the full article →

Are Apologists for Layoffs Actually Just Bad Economists?

February 26, 2009

Here’s a post in honor of my friend Ian Ayres, a law & economics scholar who celebrates a big birthday today. Ian is constantly challenging academics of all stripes to stretch their thinking by asking themselves hypothetical questions. His favorite rhetorical tactic always seems to include two words: Why Not? Ian eschews any line [...]

Read the full article →

$819 Billion to show us that transparency is not enough

February 12, 2009

Earlier today I was mulling over a post by Rachel Happe at The Social Organization, arguing for more transparency about organizational budgets and compensation plans.
Rachel asserts that “accounting is really an exercise about setting our priorities and ensuring that we are acting on and accounting for those priorities. ” Thus, Rachel recommends that [...]

Read the full article →

Wearing the Brand: Good idea, bad execution by Thai Highway Police

February 10, 2009

Employees are often asked to wear clothing and accessories that visually reflect how their organization wants others to see it. Anyone who’s seen a Southwest Airlines employee in shorts and a polo shirt, a New York Symphony Orchestra violinist in his tuxedo, or Jennifer Aniston sporting some "flair" has seen employee branding in action, [...]

Read the full article →