It is well-known that men outnumber women in the upper echelons of business. In spite of the efforts of women on the outside and on the ladder of what ought to be success, women are not coming close to men in upper management, and we have yet to figure out why.
Researchers Lise Vesterlund of the University of Pittsburgh and Muriel Niederle of Stanford University ran an experiment to find some reason why only 2.5% of women make it to the top.
In the first part of the experiment, men and women were asked to add up as many sets of double-digit numbers as they could within a five minute period, and were paid 50 cents for each correct answer. Next the volunteers were divided into groups of four. The same amount of money was going to be given out, but all of it would go to the person at each table who scored the most right answers.
For the final part of the experiment, the test subjects were asked to choose whether they wanted to go back to the 'piecework' model or continue with the 'competitive' model. Women overwhelmingly chose to go back to the 'piecework' model, even those who were best at solving answers and likely to win all the money in their group.
The researchers concluded that the factor in the difference is that men enjoy competition and women do not. I think this is a little simplistic, as "competition" is not the only thing that was being tested here, and certainly not the only character trait that would come into play.
In fact, "competitiveness" is a loaded word, with positive connotations that are valued in our culture. Is it really competitiveness when somebody without significant math skills is willing to wager that they will manage to take all? No, of course not. That is gambling, of which competitiveness is a small part. Gambling is, as we all know, a typically male behavior.
Again, look at what the women did and how we are describing them. If the women who participated (and by extension, those in society at large) are not "competitive", then they must be "non-competitive", surely a bad character trait.
Now look at what the males were doing as gambling. What's the opposite of gambling that you'll win or lose all? How about working to assure equitable distribution of earnings? Is that such a bad thing?
Subscribe to From the Office of the Principal - blogspot
1 comments:
All true, gambling that they can bully their way to what they want instead of earning it, even if earning it is not only a sure thing, but less work. They display a blindness to the outward appearance of their actions which is obvious to all other observers.
In my next post I will be giving some examples of this and just how counterproductive it can be to the male under the influence of this affliction.
Post a Comment