Huffington Post


The Huffington Post
Marie C. Wilson
May 26, 2010

I had never paid too much attention to oil rigs until sitting on a panel with Deborah Myerson of Stanford University. She described research she had conducted with Robin Ely of Harvard that explored how focusing on safety on these dirty dangerous places had allowed men to abandon behaviors traditionally associated with masculinity. They literally made themselves vulnerable for the sake of the survival of all aboard.

Ely’s team was studying gender roles, and they focused on how masculinity could be re-shaped by changing the work environment. They chose the oil rigs on the Gulf Coast as their subject, helicoptered out and lived there to see this transformation. What they found was fascinating: men, for the sake of safety and productivity, were encouraged to abandon the bravado, risk taking, and denying failure associated with tough jobs like these and make themselves, “vulnerable.” As a result the riggers shared with their supervisors and co-workers when they weren’t quite up to snuff that day, felt free to admit to mistakes, and asked questions about information they didn’t understand.

The results of these experiments were equally astounding. There were 84% fewer accidents and increased productivity that exceeded the company’s benchmarks when men exchanged behaviors traditionally associated with masculinity and competence for more non-heroic traits. And beyond those outcomes, the study’s results showed, “how organizational features might encourage people to resist those stereotypes,” says Ely.

I have thought of this so often with reference to the Deep Horizon spill, where, as it turns out, just before the big blow-out, there had been a celebration of seven years with no accidents on this particular oil rig. But as Mike Williams, one of the last crew members to escape from the rig told Scott Pelley in his harrowing account of survival on 60 Minutes a week ago, precursors for the accident had been building for weeks.

Williams talked about the pressure that kept building to drill faster as the time table of finishing the job in 21 days expanded to 6 weeks with the accompanying profitability loss. And as safety gave way to time pressure, the most vital piece of equipment, the blow-out preventer, was damaged. When the workers pointed out this system failure, they were told it was “no problem.”

He also described the locking of horns between BP executives and Transnational (the company that actually ran the rig). This clash of the 2 corporations in charge of the rig sent a message to the crew that leadership was back, and that the teamwork the crew had displayed, complete with measures and practices that would keep them and the ocean they worked in safe, was over. The end of this tale is now the worst oil spill in history. Eleven men are dead and with it the fish and fowl, and the dreams and livelihood of countless others as the spill continues.

I follow this story every day, and I think of the big blow-outs that have happened in the last decade and how bravado has triumphed and the people of this country, and the world, have lost.

I think of all the whistle blowers in the financial crises, from those who warned the SEC about Bernard Madoff, to the journalists and economists who harped on creating financial institutions that were the equivalent of a house of cards, blow-out preventers if there ever were any.

As the fall-out from financial crisis continues to play out, that speculation has grown to include articles and inquiries about whether if there had been more women leaders in the financial sector, there would have been a crisis of such proportion. I think there’s a good chance women’s blow-out prevention traits might have prevailed

And in regard to foreign affairs, I am reminded of Jessica Tuchman Matthew’s proposal for, “aggressive inspections” as an alternative to going to war with Iraq. She asked that every site where there was any hint of weapons be inspected and even destroyed if inspectors weren’t satisfied; a proposal I am told stayed on the table until a week before the invasion. Think of the blow-out prevention that would have been.

Women have been socialized to be more risk-smart cooperative, vulnerable and open to admitting our mistakes and failures. We have our own lessons to learn about feminine roles, but one is the collusion we offer by maintaining the status quo that serves to keeping man-ly men behaviors in place.

To take the metaphor all the way , our country and our world seem to me like one gigantic oil rig: an increasingly dangerous place where we have developed instrumentalities that should have improved our lives but which, when spun out of control have put us all in danger. Scientific discoveries that allow us to kill each other in massive numbers; financial wizardry whose fall out is causing loss of our jobs and homes; products that produce wastes that clog our rivers and oceans and kill the lands and waters that we are so dependent on.

All of this spills out in ways that like the oil on the gulf waters are becoming beyond our capacity to contain.

So how, if making safety the issue could so alter behavior on oil rigs, why we aren’t able to do it on the big rigs we live and float across space on?

For the sake of the safety of the planet, why can’t we find some way to cooperate across boundaries, to make ourselves vulnerable, to admit mistakes and learn from failures? Man-ly man behavior in men and acquiescence to these behaviors by women will have to be abandoned. If we don’t pay attention to this, we may be one big unplugged event from our demise.

Want to read more the original article? Click here.

The Huffington Post
Ilene Lang and Marie Wilson
April 22, 2010

Eighteen years ago, only days before the first annual Take Our Daughters to Work Day, the Ms. Foundation for Women received a call from a New York City high school teacher.

The teacher said she had lined up an internship for one of her bright female students in a downtown business. All she had to do was show up. But standing at the foot of the building, the girl was overwhelmed and went home.

With encouragement from the teacher, she tried again. This time she got inside the building, but couldn’t press the button on the elevator. Again, she left.

The teacher– sensing the depth of her discomfort– went with her. It worked. She got the internship and her “sea legs.”

This is what Take Our Daughters to Work Day is all about. Expanded to include boys in 2003, the program enables millions of children to see first-hand the possibilities afforded by a good education, experience a family-friendly work environment, and bolster self-esteem.

But despite our best efforts, new research shows that the future is not as bright for our children as we once thought. Women lag behind men in pay and promotions. And across society, especially in politics, there is a crisis in female leadership.

“Pipeline’s Broken Promise,” a new report by Catalyst, analyzed the career paths and salaries of more than 4,100 MBA graduates from around the world. It found that women start at lower positions, earn less money and receive fewer promotions than equally skilled men. Even after taking into account industry, parenthood status, and region, among other factors, women make on average $4,600 less in their initial jobs out of business school.

If this is happening to the best and the brightest of our daughters, can you imagine what is happening to others across the spectrum of workplaces and skill levels?

A new report by the White House Project, “Benchmarking Women’s Leadership,” set out to answer this question. The study looked at ten sectors across American culture and found women comprise, on average, only 18% of the top leadership positions across all ten.

The business sector, where women hold an average of 16% of the leadership positions, is one of the lowest. This is painfully ironic because Catalyst’s “Bottom Line” studies show that companies with the highest representation of women in top management outperform, on average, those with fewer.

Women working full-time still earn only 77 cents to every dollar earned by a man– an improvement of less than half a penny a year since the Equal Pay Act of 1963 was signed. African-American women make 64% less than white men while Hispanic women earn 52% less.

Gender inequity is rife in politics too. While we make up over half of the US population, women are 12% of all governors, 15% of all mayors of large cities, 23% of state legislators and 24% of state executive officials. The ratios are equally dire on the federal level. Women comprise only 17% of the members of Congress and hold 14% of Congressional committee chairs. Women of color account for only 5% of representatives in the House and are completely absent in the Senate. And we still have not had a female president or vice president.

These ratios have remained largely unchanged over the past decade despite the fact that women have voted at increasingly higher rates than men in every presidential election since 1980. And women in Congress, on average, bring home more money for their districts, attract more co-sponsors, and introduce more bills than their male colleagues.

Still, women lag behind men in business and politics. The question is: how do we fix this?

For politics, we have to recruit and train women in ever increasing numbers. Research has shown that women who choose to run for office are just as likely as their male counterparts to win. Training programs provide key support networks, tools, and inspiration for women to pursue careers in politics.

In business, managers must take hard, honest looks at their recruiting, hiring, and promotion processes. If they find a disparity about where new employees were placed, and how much they earned, it should be corrected.

And there is something we all can do today. By taking our children to work we can give them the strength to pursue their goals and inspire them to strive for the top, regardless of their gender. We should tell them they can be anything they want to be– and act on this promise to make it come true.

To view original article, click here.

By Marie Wilson

Huffington Post

January 20, 2009

There’s a chance that all of the punditry swirling around Tuesday’s Senate race in Massachusetts was deeply prophetic about the Democrat’s chances in the fall 2010 Congressional elections, but the death knell of Martha Coakley’s campaign might have been as simple as her comment about the Red Sox. The Red Sox are a religion in Massachusetts. And when Coakley gaffed on a radio program and indicated that former Red Sox hero Curt Schilling was a Yankee fan, many interpreted this as a signal that she was completely out of touch with the electorate, for whom Schilling and his team mean more than helath care reform, and more than a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. That is why what we at The White House Project teach our trainees who aspire to run for political office is this: culture matters.
For some, it’s hard to understand how large a role our popular culture plays in our public sphere. And the White House Project has sometimes taken flack for focusing on what some consider less-than-serious emphasis on the culture. We train only women (of any and all political stripes) to run for office, the role of sports has always been a theme for us. Women athletes show the country that women are tough and persistent and we love working with groups like the WNBA, whose games have served as an unofficial opportunity to reach people about our work.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marie-c-wilson/how-about-them-red-sox_b_430568.html

The Huffington Post
Faith Winter, Training and Outreach Director at the White House Project
January 15, 2010

With Governor Ritter’s surprise announcement last week the dominos quickly fell into place on the pecking order of who should be the nominee for Governor.

The general consensus was 1. Secretary Salazar, 2. Mayor Hickenlooper, 3. Representative Perlmutter. And now Mayor Hickenlooper has announced he will run for Governor. This quick “hand over” of the nomination to the top executive position in our state prompted me to think about exactly what (or who) makes a candidate? Why were these three our “go-to” guys? The immediate answer is they each have the requisite experience and viability. This is a trend in our state. During the 2009 Senate appointment process to fill Secretary Salazar’s seat, women were also left off of the short list.

This then begs the question: why were many of our female elected officials and potential candidates with an equal or greater measure of these requirements overlooked?

Ask people what makes a viable candidate and most will answer, “experience.” In these volatile times, the voting public is wary of electing someone who hasn’t been around the block a few times. If “experience” is the primary criteria, it is followed closely “viability”: the ability to raise money state-wide, and by having name-recognition across the state. Given where Colorado is financially, we would assume voters would appreciate a candidate with intimate knowledge of the workings of the state budgetary process. Perhaps even someone who has steered the state through one of the worst recessions this country has ever seen. Our State Treasurer Cary Kennedy fits the bill entirely, and yet she was passed over for consideration.

I have heard from a lot of people that Mayor Hickenlooper and Secretary Salazar were at the top of the list of potential gubernatorial candidates because they have proven that they could win a state-wide race. But Treasurer Kennedy has successfully run state- wide, has proven she can raise money for a state-wide race, and is seen as a leading expert on the issue that every poll shows is number one on the minds of Colorado’s voters: the economy. Another potential candidate, Representative Betsy Markey, represents a larger geographic area than Mayor Hickenlooper and her colleague Rep. Perlmutter, whom the media was also touting as a potential candidate for the governor’s seat.

I have also heard that there is a pecking order to the nomination for governor, and therefore Treasurer Kennedy has to “wait her turn”. If our list of potential candidates is based on seniority then Representative Diana Degette should have been at the top of the list. She is the Democrats senior member in congress.

Aside from these empirical facts, Colorado likes electing women. We were the first state to elect a woman state wide in 1899, and last year led the nation in the number of women in our legislature. Our recently released study, “The White House Project Report: Benchmarking Women’s Leadership” cited recent polling by the gFk/Roper that showed voters trust women as much if not more than men to lead on important issues. Given all this, the perception that Treasurer Kennedy could not win, or would have less of a chance to succeed than someone like Mayor Hickenlooper or Representative Perlmutter is false.

The reason these women were not immediately on the list or part of everyone’s discussions of who will run in Governor Ritter’s place has just as much if not more to do with the media and culture than electability and experience.

In 2000 The White House Project conducted some ground breaking research called “Hair, Hemlines and Husbands”. The conclusion was that not only were male candidates covered more frequently by the news media, but the coverage was focused on their stances on the issues and on their voting records, while the discussion around the female candidates often revolved around their hair, their hemlines and their husbands.

We followed up that research in 2001 with “From Soundbites to Solutions”. This research found that on political talk shows, and on interviews between the media and political experts, male guests outnumbered female guest 9 to1. We also found that these appearances have an influence over the electorate if forming perceptions of who is qualified to lead and who is not based on who is sitting at the table.

In the days since Governor Ritter announced his decision, Mayor Hickenlooper was mentioned dozens of times and has been in the headlines at least seven times. Both Salazar and Perlmutter have also been mentioned dozens of times. It was a full three days before many of the political blogs, news websites and TV stations began to mention Treasurer Kennedy, or Representatives Markey or DeGette in more than a tokenizing way. At the same time many of mentions of Treasurer Kennedy pointedly noted that she was a mother, and mused on how that would weigh on her decision. Mayor Hickenlooper’s family was only mentioned once or twice out of dozens of mentions of his decision.

These not-so-subtle endorsements of Mayor Hickenlooper by the media made his announcement appear inevitable. The media had elevated him to frontrunner status as the Democratic nominee before he even formally entered the race.

We need to make the Colorado state-wide political bench bigger and more diverse, and we need the media to focus on female candidates as seriously as they have on their male counterparts.

My call to action is threefold:

  1. Let’s ask our local media to examine their coverage of potential female candidates for the governor’s race, so they can clearly see the gender-bias in their reporting.
  2. As members of the electorate, let’s ask our political parties to push all viable candidates to the top, and let’s ask ourselves to start thinking of female candidates as serious contenders.
  3. And finally, let’s ask a competent woman we know to run for office, from the local level all the way through to a candidate like Treasurer Kennedy. The number one reason women run for office is that someone says, ” I believe in you and you should run”.

If we all take these three steps, the next election cycle in Colorado could be truly representative of the diversity and talent our state has to offer. We deserve nothing less.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.