Marie Wilson


The New York Times: Letters to the Editor
Marie C. Wilson
June 18, 2010

Ross Douthat ends his June 14 column, “No Mystique About Feminism,” with the assertion that the emergence of the most recent round of conservative victories is a happy consequence of the victories of the women’s movement. He is right: the women who won this month have the feminist movement, and especially the ’70s liberal wave of feminism, to thank for opening the public world of politics to women.

What gets lost in Mr. Douthat’s analysis is the slippery slope that we may find ourselves on if the policies that made it possible for Carly Fiorina et al. are not supported going forward. Women must have choices about how many children they can support, affordable child care options and the ability to earn a living that will allow more of them to run for office and lead in other sectors as well.

Women make up only 17 percent of political leaders today, and the White House Project’s most recent research, “Benchmarking Women’s Leadership,” shows that across 10 sectors of American culture, women on average are only 18 percent of its leaders. If the full range of health, economic and safety options is not supported by the women who advance, then they will pull the ladder up behind them.

Marie C. Wilson
President and Founder
The White House Project
New York, June 14, 2010

Want to read more of the original article? Click here.

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.

A fear of diversity is at the center of Tea Party anger, argues The White House Project’s Marie Wilson—the very quality that produces good decision-making and the innovation that is likely to pull us out of the Great Recession.

For several months Americans have watched the Tea Party movement grow and have asked, “What do these groups really want?”  When they purported to be against healthcare reform (what they called, “Obamacare”) but carried signs that read  “Get your government out of my Medicare” and “Take our country back,”  it didn’t make sense.  And the Tea Party protesters we’ve seen on the news aren’t talking about the traditional firebrand issues of abortion and gay rights either.  Actually, during the healthcare debates, they didn’t seem to have any solid policy issues at all, just anger.  But when the racial and homophobic epithets started to fly, the plot thinned.

Frank Rich nailed it in his March 28 New York Times piece, “The Rage Is Not About Health Care.”  As he said, it’s about the “real changes in America that can’t be repealed,” and he made a clear, historically based case about just what the ethnically homogeneous Tea Party members are afraid of losing: the dominance of white people in the United States.   It’s the same fear that the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights bill evoked.

Citing the folks who so visibly and recently represent this change (President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Justice Sotomayor),  Rich also argues that the issue didn’t have to be healthcare,  but that any inaugural piece of legislation would have elicited these “fears of disenfranchisement among a … dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play.”  It is no surprise that those legislators who were singled out first with slurs and spit, like Representatives John Cleaver and Barney Frank and, the lion of the House, Representative John Lewis, are well-known African-American and gay leaders in Congress.  I agree with Rich in his assessment that when the Tea Party folks signal whom they “want to take the country back from,” it is representatives like Cleaver, Frank and Lewis, and their prime target, Nancy Pelosi, whom they are talking about.

Graphic by Vanessa Dennis & Cris Amico; source: Patchwork NationGraphic by Vanessa Dennis & Cris Amico; source: Patchwork Nation

As someone who grew up in Georgia in the forties and fifties and worked in the civil rights movement in the sixties, I recognized in Sarah Palin’s terse rhetoric during the presidential campaign, as Rich did, language that served as bait and evoked cries of Obama as a “traitor” and actual calls to take Obama’s life.  This rhetoric ostensibly paved the way for the post-election Tea Party movement.  Palin’s actions then and now show that beyond her lack of knowledge about politics and policy, her lack of understanding of history and culture is more dangerous.  I truly doubt she grasps the fire she is playing with, and I pray that powerful people in her party will not follow McCain’s lead in joining her in these references, and will instead advise her to cut out her language about “reload” and the gun-related images on her website.

While I disagree with the Tea Partiers actions, I don’t want to diminish the real anger and fears that Americans who aren’t taking tea, but are suffering and need some way to participate in our democracy.   I also understand that they see very few open avenues that will permit them to constructively vent their frustrations.

Those of us who are still employed have a responsibility and a mandate to help make the needed changes.   We also have the duty to keep the intensity down by talking about the real promise this growing diversity in our country, and across every branch of our government, holds for a more prosperous union.  New research actually shows that a diverse group of people will make a better decision than a group of experts, because as one of the leading researchers, Scott Page says, “we are all stuck at different places.”  It is this variety of orientation and perspective that breeds innovation.

The paradox here is that the rich diversity of people the Tea Party fears could be the key to pulling us out of this economic slump, which was created by in large by groups of wealthy white men from very similar backgrounds.

As the leader of The White House Project, I see daily the repercussions of our failure to use the resources represented by American’s women who cross all of these diverse areas, and I know what we are missing out on.   For instance, as our recently released Benchmarks Report revealed,  women led only 3 percent of the Fortune 500 companies and hold fewer than 17 percent of the executive positions in those companies, even though research shows that profits at Fortune 500 firms that most aggressively promoted women were 34 percent higher than industry medians.

As Frank Rich noted, there are real changes in American life that cannot be repealed, but that can be used to foster a better life for all of us, if we remember what Franklin Roosevelt said long ago, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”

View this online.

For another WMC Exclusive posted today, click on “The Tea Party Movement—Taking the Pulse,” a report and analysis by Peggy Simpson. The views expressed in this commentary are those of the author alone and do not represent WMC. WMC is a 501(c)(3) organization and does not endorse candidates.

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.

The Washington Post
Marie Wilson
February 8, 2010

Sarah Palin would have to have an “extreme makeover” in political knowledge and experience to restore confidence in her beyond the conservative base.

The only people who have been able to come from outside the political world (and she is now outside that world) and run have been business leaders who have led a large corporations or reached a high rank in the military. It won’t do to be a Fox pundit or a Tea Party heroine to lead a country in an era as complex as we live in now. If punditry alone is enough to get you elected president, then our democracy is in more of a disarray than I care to believe.

If Sarah Palin really wants to be a leader in this country, she should use the identity that she touted so heavily during her Vice Presidential campaign, and that many people associate her with: mother. Ms. Palin could call for a new focus on the need for a comprehensive child care policy, something we haven’t had in 40 years. If she were to focus on this issue, all the way through to passing and enacting legislation, she would be the contributing to this country in a way that is sorely needed. She would be helping all women to be the presidents of their own lives and to lead in the public world alongside men.

To view original article click here.

January 27, 2010

By Lisa Copeland

The Power of Pink has taken on a completely new meaning to me as of today.

My friend and founder of The White House Project, Marie Wilson, was just named one of the “10 women to watch in 2010“.  What an honor! Marie has had an incredible life and career.  She founded the “Take Your Daughter To Work Day” program, The White House Project and has the ear of the most powerful women in the Nation. Her message is strong, and her resolve to see women in the white house is UNwavering.  She is a personal hero of mine!

What is the most shocking to me is who made this nomination.  None other than Barbie herself!  Let me explain.  Mattel has launched a campaign to celebrate the 125-year anniversary of Barbie (Wow, she still looks pretty good!)  Part of this monumental campaign is to decide what Barbie’s next career is going to be.  You can VOTE HERE yourself!

Now, when I grew up I had more Barbies than most girls; I love Barbie.  I fundamentally understand the reason for this campaign. I have to wonder, does  Barbie have more appeal to young girls than the Lindsey Lohan? I  hope so!  Barbie has staying power,  Barbie has a job, Barbie has never been to rehab and Barbie only has one boyfriend!

I called a friend of mine to tell her about the “Barbie campaign” and to encourage her to vote. She asked me” Are you just a little jealous that Barbie didn’t think  YOU were one of the 10 women to watch in 2010?”  We had a good laugh,  then tried to figure out who in today’s world of reality TV and pop culture could be a better role model for young women.(For the record I would have given my first very valuable, vintage  Barbie and pink Barbie corvette to make the list). Sad to say from a celebrity stand point we could not think of any.  I truly admire the amazing women who have earned to right to be called the” top 10 women to watch in 2010″.  I am telling the story to keep it at the forefront of our minds that as women, we still have a long way to go. We must be constantly looking for role models that can uphold the values that we want to instill in our young women.

Read more at:  http://thepowerofpinkblog.com/think-pink/10-women-to-watch-in-2010/

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 Washington Post
Marie Wilson
December 17, 2009

I nominate Ursula Burns and Anne Mulcahy of Xerox as a leaders who exemplify the unique leadership women can bring to corporate America. In July of this year, Ursula Burns was tapped to succeed Anne Mulcahy as CEO of Xerox with Ms. Mulcahy remaining as Chairman of the Board.

Both women have 30+ years each with Xerox. That institutional knowledge at the top of the corporate structure during some of the toughest economic times in recent history ensured that Xerox would weather the storms of 2009 with the wind at their back as they move into 2010.

To go through a transition of leadership in the midst of an economic downturn can have extreme negative effects on a corporation’s bottom line. Phasing out a CEO can make shareholders and potential investors apprehensive about the company’s stability. In adopting a co-leadership model, both Ms. Burns and Ms. Mulcahy showed a willingness to forgo ego in order to provide a strong foundation for Xerox during these changes.

I’m not saying that they did this because they are women, or that this is what all women leaders do. But in speaking to women and men about the importance of getting numbers of women into top leadership, invariably someone makes sure to talk about how women “just don’t support each other.” The story of how when Ursula was made CEO, actually surprising folks in and outside the company, Anne made a decision to stay at Xerox to support her is a moving one. And their ability to forge successful co-leadership roles seamlessly during this time has been a very public contradiction of the old saw about women “being our own worst enemies.

Their steady management of and dedication to the employees of Xerox has served as a lesson in successful leadership that has corporate America watching, along with the Obama administration. Ms. Burns was recently named to lead The White House Initiative on Science, technology, Engineering, and Math Education.

To view original article click here.

The Washington Post
Marie Wilson
December 10, 2009

Believe it or not Tiger Woods is in a place very much like women find themselves when we are in leadership positions: breeches of integrity by women (of whom so much more in this area is expected) are not easily tolerated, by women or men. We are held to a higher standard as Woods will be. And though his endorsements are still largely intact, the popularity behind the Tiger Woods brand will likely continue to falter, as news about his alleged dalliances builds.

Every field and sector has a legacy, and golf is the “good guy” sport. It’s individual, but also friendly and communal, not prone to violence. It is a sport characterized by mastery over ones spirit: body and mind. Look at the men who have been golf champs, by and large they are respected–mostly “family guys” or they appear to be, and they are sold to the American public as such.

Tiger Woods brought a skill-level to the game that was unprecedented. The fact that Woods not only looked different than Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus and the rest just added to the expectations from fans. And fans are the people who made him the CEO of Golf. Like any leader who, because of his skill and demeanor, deserves to be a CEO, Tiger Woods was revered by his followers, golfers and non-golfers, for expanding the possibilities of the sport. This makes his “fall” all the more difficult to accept.

Women have to wear the mantle of integrity in whatever place they are. We are expected to behave “better” than the men in our field in order to prove ourselves worthy of participating in “the game.” That’s why Woods now finds himself in a position familiar to many women leaders. As the CEO of Golf, he is held to a higher standard. While these expectations may not interfere with his drive or his putt, they will always be standing there beside him as he tees off. The disappointment we feel when he fails to meet our expectations takes away from his heroic stance as the CEO of Golf.

To view original article click here.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.