March 31, 2026 • 30 mins
What Are the Questions We Should Be Asking About Women?
John, Mark, and David each hold more corporate board seats than all female corporate directors combined. Not all three of them together. Each one of them, individually. Let that sit.
This is the season two Women's History Month episode, and we are not here to celebrate what women have survived. We are here to interrogate the systems that made survival necessary in the first place.
Dr. Patti Fletcher, Lynne Cuppernull, and Dan Ward ask the questions that the glossy Women's History Month content skips: Who wrote the rules women are still following and who are those rules actually serving? Why do we keep treating women as the variable that needs to be solved for instead of asking what kind of world we are trying to build together? What does it cost an organization when women hold real power without formal authority, and does anyone even see it? What happens to AI, the technology that has become our electricity, when women are not in the room coding it? And what would change if they were?
Also on the table: coactive versus coercive power, why soft power needs a rebrand, what men risk by showing up as feminists at work, and the French press calling Catherine Wright "the third Wright brother" and almost, almost getting it right.
This episode was sponsored by the long game. Played by women everywhere, often when they cannot see the scoreboard.
Resources we mention in this episode:
- "Disrupters: Success Strategies From Women Who Break The Mold" by Dr. Patti Fletcher
- Put a Woman In Charge, song by Keb’ Mo’
- UN Report on AI & Gender Equality
- “LIFT: Innovation Lessons From Flying Machines That ALMOST Worked and The People Who NEARLY Flew Them” by Dan Ward
- Why Women over 50 are the Future of Work in the Age of AI by Laetitia Vitaud, Fast Company
Listening for the Questions drops every other Tuesday wherever you listen to podcasts. Subscribe, leave a review, and bring a question.
Listening for the Questions is where curiosity is our compass.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Lynne (00:14):
Hello, and welcome back to Listening for the Questions.
I'm Lynn Cuppernal.
I'm a leadership coach and ahealthcare consultant.
I'm also a woman.
And as always, I'm joined by myfriends Dan and Patty, and we
have got some great questionstoday.
Dan (00:31):
Hey everybody, Dan Ward here.
I'm an engineer and militarytechnologist.
I'm also an author and a jugglerand a punk.
And I'm not a woman.
I'm also pretty sure today'stopic is something we have
mentioned on every singleepisode of this podcast so far.
I love it.
And no, the topic is not AI.
Patti (00:48):
And I'm Dr.
Patty Fletcher, a recoveringC-suite executive from big tech,
a leadership futurist working atthe intersection of people,
business, technology, and data,a best-selling author.
And as you guys do not know, umlistening, but my co-hosts do, I
just sit here giggling throughevery intro.
I'm so happy I know everyone'sgender.
(01:09):
Um, Dan, you know, I thinkyou're right.
We talk about today's topic alot.
Mostly you bring it up.
Um, and I'm glad we'rededicating a whole episode to it
in a month that's been dedicatedto our topic.
So let's get started.
What are the questions, people,that we should be asking about
you guessed it, women?
Dan (01:30):
All right.
So is it weird if I go first?
And that's actually my firstquestion.
As a man, is it weird if I askedthe first question in today's
episode?
Patti (01:39):
So I've read this a few times and like from our show
notes, you guys, and it stillmakes me laugh.
So it's such a good one.
So, Dan, look, my reaction whenI read the notes, and my
reaction right now is only youwould make your first question
about whether you, as a man, areallowed to ask a question about
women, and I love it.
(02:00):
And no, I don't think it's weirdbecause I know you're not going
to mansplain being a woman tome.
I think it is just you beingaware.
Lynne (02:08):
Well, whether it's weird or not, it sounds like maybe it
feels weird to you.
So I want us to ask why it feelsweird to you, Dan.
Is it because you're a manasking about women, or because
you're afraid of maybe gettingit wrong?
Or because you think you shouldbe chivalrous and let the women
(02:29):
go first, or because maybe itfeels like this topic belongs to
us and not you.
Patti (02:35):
Ooh, good questions, Lynn.
You know, that also makes mewonder what it says about how
society frames conversationsabout women in the first place.
I mean, if men like Dan, who arepaying attention and doing the
work, if those types of men feellike they need to ask for
permission to engage with thistopic, what does that say about
(02:59):
this topic?
And what does that say about usas a culture and as a people?
And have we made theconversation smaller by creating
the impression that women'stopics are exclusively for
women?
And anyone who knows me knows Ihave a very strong opinion on
gender topics.
So, and if you know if you don'tknow me, you probably know that.
(03:19):
So they may be a little bitsurprised by this next question
I have, which is why shouldn'tDan ask the first question
today?
Lynne (03:28):
Yes.
And if it feels even slightlyweird for Dan to go first, which
let me point out, he totally nowis not doing because we've asked
like 8,000 questions already.
But if it does feel slightlyweird for Dan to ask to go
first, what does that tell usabout what we expect from men
when women are the subject ofconversation?
(03:52):
Are we expecting them to follow,stay quiet?
What?
What are we expecting?
Dan (03:57):
These are great questions.
I love all of them.
And I do want to sort of sitwith the irony for a moment that
today's topic is women.
And we've asked a lot ofquestions about men so far.
And like, is that okay too?
Right?
You know, I think when we talkabout women, maybe one of the
questions we need to ask is likehow men can be part of the
conversation without taking itover, without centering men.
(04:19):
And I'm definitely not askingeither of you to answer any of
those questions.
Patti (04:24):
So, right before we pressed record on this episode,
I was sharing with my co-hostsabout how I can't not start
singing if I even hear one word.
I hear the word irony, Dan, andI think about isn't it ironic
from Alanis Morissette?
I shall sing when we stop therecording.
You're welcome.
Um, but in all seriousness, youknow, Dan, and here's where I
(04:45):
want to go with this.
In my research for disruptors,my book about women who break
the mold, one of the things Ifound out is that women who
broke that mold didn't do it bywaiting for men to figure out
how we as women can be part ofthe conversation and the
solution.
They did it by redefining whatthe conversation was about in
(05:10):
the first place.
So maybe the question isn't howdo men join the conversation
about women or when are theyallowed to do that?
But maybe the question is why dowe keep having a conversation
about women as if women are thevariable that needs to be solved
for, instead of asking, whatkind of world are we trying to
(05:30):
build together?
Lynne (05:31):
Patty, I love the concept of building the world together.
Though I wonder if the questionisn't so much solving for women
as it is building intentionalinclusion.
And so then with that in mind,taking a business pivot, how
might organizations lookdifferent if they'd been
(05:53):
designed with women from thebeginning?
Patti (05:57):
Now that's the gazillion-dollar question we
don't have enough zeros for.
You know, when we talk aboutthat, Lynn, and just thinking
about what you and Dan arebringing up, when we talk about
the intersection of women andwork, we do need to acknowledge
that the rules in pretty muchevery workplace were written
well before women were in theroom, right?
(06:19):
So I want women to askourselves, which rules are we
following?
And who actually wrote them?
And who are they serving, right?
We seem to go back to these samequestions regardless of the pod
topic.
And, you know, are those rulesdesigned to bring us in or are
they designed to keep us out?
Lynne (06:39):
And that got me thinking about a related question about
stories.
Whose stories have we beentelling?
I mean, we're it's March.
It's Women's History Month.
We have been telling a lot ofstories about women.
Whose stories are we telling andwhose stories are we not
telling?
Who are we leaving out?
You know, and related to that, Iguess this is related.
(07:01):
I maybe I just want to ask thisquestion.
Um, who are the specific womenwho shaped your life and work?
How do we tell their stories?
I feel like the stories we tellduring Women's History Month are
a God love them, about the samefew women, right?
I love you, Rosa Parks.
I love you, Harriet Tubman, Ilove you, Susan B.
(07:22):
Anthony.
Um what about the women whoshaped our lives and work?
And how do we tell theirstories?
How did they help us write newrules and set new standards that
we benefit from?
I mean, I certainly know mymother and her friends did.
And then finally, maybe we ask,what were they carrying that
(07:42):
we've never thought to ask themabout?
Dan (07:44):
Ooh, Lynn, I love that last question in particular.
Asking not just what stories arebeing told and not told, but
really understanding thosestories and what were some of
these women carrying that wedidn't hear about before.
And so as we think aboutlistening to stories, that made
me think of listening to music,which made me think of a blues
musician named Kev Moe, who hasa terrific song called Put a
(08:05):
Woman in Charge.
Uh, we'll put a link in the shownotes.
Uh the song basically saysthings in the world would be
better for everyone if womenwere in charge.
And like, amen, brother, yes.
But to put it in the form of aquestion though, what if Kev Moe
is right?
What if building a moreequitable world where more women
are in leadership positions?
What if that made things betterfor everyone?
(08:26):
And then how can we take stepsnow to help build that kind of a
world?
Let's pause on that assumptionfor a moment.
Lynne (08:35):
How do women lead differently than men?
And by the way, there I justread a kick-ass article in Fast
Company today about why womenover 50 specifically are
kick-ass leaders.
I am paraphrasing what the titlewas, um, and why more companies
should be hiring them?
And there's like nine amazingreasons, including we live
(08:58):
longer, so you should put us inpositions of leadership and
power because we're going to bearound longer.
Um, but just getting back tothis concept of how do women
lead differently than men, likewhat makes it better?
Is it better?
Is vulnerability rewardeddifferently for men than women
(09:18):
in the workplace?
And if it is, and I think it is,how does that affect how we
lead?
So, Patty, what questions alongthese lines came up for you when
you were writing Disruptors?
Patti (09:31):
Lynn, first of all, um, I don't care what anyone says, you
come up with really good titlesfor blogs and stuff.
And if it wasn't the title, itshould have been.
Um, because yeah, it would goviral.
Um, so thank you for asking, bythe way.
I I do appreciate that.
And I do, I not only am I awoman over 50, I've been
studying women over 50 for over25 years, and I really loved it.
(09:54):
And that article, definitelycheck it out.
We'll put it in the show notes.
Because even for me, there are afew things in there that were
either reframed or a bit new,and I love, love, love that.
So, look, lots of questions cameup, and I'm just gonna rattle
off some of them if it's okaywith you guys, right?
So the and these are by the way,um, evergreen um questions.
So not only they come through inthe book Disruptors, which was
(10:15):
published in 2018, they've beencoming through since way before
I started on this work.
They came through when I firstdid, and they're still relevant
today.
So a few that come to mind ifwomen um often hold real power
without formal power, right?
They're given theresponsibility, but not the
authority.
What does that cost them?
(10:36):
And what does it cost theorganizations that don't see it?
Let that sit with you for aminute.
The next ones aretransformational leadership.
So transformational leadershipand transactional leadership.
There are multiple types ofleadership forms, but
transactional is very kind ofquig pro crow, right?
I pay you money, you give mesomething.
(10:56):
So the first one's like kind ofpower and control.
The other one is like we allbuild this together.
There's a vision, looks totallydifferent, right?
That's when we start hearingpeople in the knowledge economy
really start to be like, I'mgonna work for this brand
because it aligns with thethings that I want to do and how
I want to do them in the change.
So transformational leaders arethere, they take folks from
(11:17):
where they are to something theycould not even believe they
could achieve, and they achieveit together.
So, in transformationalleadership, very human-oriented,
um, it is the form that is mostconducive to people with female
leadership traits, the kind thatenables people to change
themselves rather than compete,compelling them to comply.
(11:42):
It produces better outcomes,right?
It's all the tech companies, itproduces better outcomes.
But yet we women, although we'rethe best at this, we're still
seen as soft, right?
Orlyn, like you say, vulnerable.
And you know, what structuralincentives keep that
transactional leadership, oftenassociated with male leadership
traits, dominant even when theevidence points to the need
(12:07):
elsewhere?
Why do they still exist?
And then I'll throw one lastconcept out there for you.
Women who've been told to actmore like a man, and we've seen
that written in popular press bymen and women, including Cheryl
Sandberg and Lean Inn, andwe'll, you know, don't need to
talk about that today, but wecan, because that's pretty much
the message.
Um, we haven't closed the gapbecause of right that with that
(12:30):
topic.
We just haven't act more like aman, assimilate, right, to those
constructs that were defined bymen and for them.
So, what exactly is the cost ofdemanding women to assimilate,
right?
And who's paying it?
Lynne (12:44):
Oh, Patty, I think we know who's paying it.
I know we're not answeringquestions.
You know, before we go on, Ihave one go back.
You rattled off a lot of reallygood questions that came up as
you were writing disruptors.
Um I I do want to ask this one,and I think you can answer.
If women hold real power withoutformal power, can you just say
(13:06):
more about that?
What does that look like?
Patti (13:08):
So there's multiple ways to answer this, right?
So, first, women have a lot ofpower.
We are 90% of all consumerbuying decisions, where our
family goes on vacation, theproducts we buy, what doctors we
see, right?
All of those things.
We have a lot of power in termsof the number of degrees that we
have, right?
All of that.
But we also have that power withtransformational leadership
(13:30):
inherently, and we've talkedabout this in other episodes, we
are relational in our decisionmaking.
So when we make a decisionaround, like if we're in the
boardroom and it's a decisionabout, you know, mergers and
acquisitions, or it's a decisionaround where we invest or
divest, or it's a hiringdecision as a middle manager, we
tend to make the best decisionsbecause we're looking at them in
(13:52):
a very circular way.
What would be the biggest impacton this stakeholder or this
program or whatever?
That's how we're wired.
It's called relational decisionmaking.
Put that over to what does thatmean in a formal setting?
So, what we see forever is thatwomen are being held accountable
for fixing things in a companywithout the formal title to go
(14:17):
with it, head of CEO, whatever.
We women have understood, and itcould be by necessity, but how
we are is we do not believe inpower of the position.
We've worked with plenty ofpeople who are put into
positions of power, not earningpositions of leadership, right?
Because leaders are only leaderswhen followers enable them to
be.
(14:37):
And that is what women know.
So we believe in the power ofthe platform.
Here is a problem I care deeplyabout, and I want to solve it,
and that's becoming part of thepurpose of the work that I am
doing here, and we use that toattract other people who believe
in solving that problem or atleast part of it.
That's what that means.
Great question.
Dan (14:58):
So, way back in the early 2000s, Tom Peters rather
famously said, women have allthe money and make all the
decisions.
And he was talking in terms oflike consumer decisions and
consumer spending, and he wasreally poking at marketers for
ignoring women and not includingthem at not just as targets, but
at the table to make some ofthese marketing decisions and
(15:19):
marketing messages.
And so, Pappy, that lines up uhreally well with what you were
saying.
Uh, and then, you know, I thinkthis idea of real power versus
formal power, uh, soft power andinfluence beyond someone's
title, their rank, theirofficial authority, the uh terms
coactive power versus coercivepower uh come to mind.
Uh coactive power is what wehave, you know, sort of power
(15:42):
with, as opposed to coercivepower, which is power over or
power to.
And that coactive power uh,frankly, is way more effective
and also tends to be genderedand aligned with sort of a
feminine approach to leadership.
And uh despite that gendering,it's my favorite way to get
stuff done is power with, notpower over, coactive versus
(16:05):
coercive, so collaborativeinstead of directive.
Lynne (16:08):
I am 100% down with renaming soft power to coactive
power, right?
Let's just get rid of softpower.
What the hell does that meananyway?
Um, I'm here for it.
Coactive power.
I wanted to go back to this ideaof the the women whose stories
we're not telling.
I've just been thinking aboutthat uh this month, my mother,
(16:31):
my grandmother.
Um, and that made me think alsoabout what questions have women
historically not been allowed toask?
And what are the questions womenare still afraid to ask out
loud?
Patty, I'd love for you toanswer that last one.
Patti (16:51):
What are the questions we're afraid to ask out loud?
I think the questions that themore vulnerable the question,
um, the more likely we're notgoing to ask them, especially if
it's a question that relates toa family matter or right, all of
those kinds of like morepersonal that bridge from a
workplace that bridge to thatbecause we gotta ask ourselves
(17:14):
why.
Is it because we know that thereis a belief, not an
understanding, not whatever, butan actual belief that we cannot
do more than one thing at atime.
We can't be moms and go sit in aboardroom, right?
I think that's really animportant one.
The next question, I'm justgonna say it, even in the
executive ranks, is there is somuch pressure on women to
(17:36):
already know what they're doing,right?
So we're hired for our expertiseand experience, not for our
potential, that we're afraid toask for help when we don't know
something.
We are afraid to double down onquestions.
I will say the higher up you go,the less likely you give a crap.
But that's not okay, right?
(17:57):
And so why are we afraid to askthose questions that might put
us in a place of um, I don'tknow what I'm doing, versus a
place of I'm really curious.
I'll figure this out, but I'mreally curious about what you
meant by X, Y, and Z.
We take, we take the blame forquestions um that try to help us
(18:17):
close gaps.
And I those are the ones thatcome to mind.
Lynne (18:20):
Yes.
I have one slight correction.
I think when we are in the car,particularly with a man, we are
not afraid to ask for help toget somewhere.
We are the ones who will ask forthe directions.
Just putting that out there.
Dan (18:33):
And I'll jump in and say I always appreciate it when
somebody in the car asks, like,should you be turning left here?
Phew.
Probably I should be turningleft ear.
So thank you.
And I do want to give a shoutout to uh Mary Parker Follett uh
was Teddy Roosevelt's managementconsultant back in the early
1900s.
She was the one who coined theterm coactive power versus
coercive power.
I had to Google her real quickand get her name correct.
(18:56):
I was thinking of an author uhwho has a different last name.
But anyway, Mary Parker Follett,shout out to her.
Man, I wish I had come acrossher writing earlier in my
career.
I'm kind of uh pissed that shedidn't show up in my management
education, and the uh the stuffthat she wrote is still
remarkably readable, insightful,impression, way ahead of her
time.
Anyway, Mary Parker Follett,check her out.
We'll put a link to her in theshow notes too.
Patti (19:17):
I love it.
Okay, guys, so look, as much asI want to stay on this topic, I
want to do a little switch.
You won't be shocked.
And yes, it's my two favoriteletters.
One guess.
One guess, you guys.
What do you think it is?
EQ?
Dan (19:30):
Hmm.
I got nothing.
I can't think of anything.
Patti (19:37):
You know what can help you with that, Dan and Lynn?
AI.
Is it AI?
What?
So look, we know AI is largelybeing built without women at the
lead, right?
Without women in the room.
Um, and you can name the CEOs ofall the big AI companies.
They're all going to be men.
You can look at every panel,they're all going to be men.
(19:58):
Unless Dan is on the panel, thenit will be all women in Dan.
And Google's AI overview says,by the way, women are
significantly underrepresentedin the AI workforce, and they
hold only 10% to 16% ofAI-related C-suite and technical
leadership positions.
Hmm.
So what happens to a technologylike AI that is our electricity?
(20:24):
It already has crossed over,right?
It is our electricity as a humanrace.
It's what connects all of us,it's how we work, it's all that
fun stuff, and now how we think.
What happens when that kind oftechnology is developed without
input from women?
It is killing me not to answerthis and be really sarcastic.
Dan (20:46):
And Patty, I love that question.
It's such an important question.
And I think there is ahistorical precedent.
So I'll keep going with thishistorical theme here, because I
wrote about a similar situationin my book, Lyft.
Lyft is about aviation inventorsin the late 1800s, the people
who tried to build flyingmachines before the Wrights came
along and had their firstsuccessful flight in 1903.
Big surprise, it's a lot ofdudes doing this work.
(21:07):
But the one thing I thought wasso interesting about the history
of that era is the men who madethe most progress on inventing
airplanes were the ones whoworked the most closely with
women.
Like the Wright brothers had asister.
Her name was Catherine.
Orville even said, when theworld speaks of the rights, it
must include our sister.
And would you believe, andPatty, I know this will not come
(21:27):
as a shock to you, but would youbelieve the French press
referred to Catherine Wright asthe third right brother?
Doggone it.
They are so close.
Like they're they're almostthere.
They at least acknowledged her,which so many others didn't do.
Calling her the third rightbrother, what a miss.
Um my question is why have wenot learned this already?
(21:49):
Like the historical record ofprogress is actually super
clear, whether we're talkingabout progress in tech or social
movements or or any kind ofprogress.
Excluding women makes thingsworse.
Including women makes thingsbetter.
You can see that in the 1800s.
It was true then.
You can see it today.
Why are we choosing not to learnthat?
Lynne (22:08):
Dan, that was such a good question.
I'm gonna repeat it.
Why are we choosing not to learnthat?
And I just have to say, callingher the right brother wasn't
exactly almost getting it right.
Had to go there for a second.
So back to your question, Dan,why are we choosing not to learn
that?
I wonder if it's because somemen fear losing something when
(22:35):
women are included.
So I want to know what does itcost a man to show up as a
feminist at work?
Dan, I do want you to answerthat question.
Dan (22:47):
Uh well, thank you for this question.
And I'm ha ha, Patty, I get toanswer one.
Patti (22:52):
Stop showing off, Dan.
Dan (22:56):
All right.
Well, I do, I think this is aninteresting question.
When I saw it on the show notes,I had to stop and think because
I'm kind of tempted to say therewas no cost for me, uh, at least
no cost that wasn't outweighedby the benefits.
Like for me, in my experience, Ithink being a feminist is a net
game.
You know, supporting the womenaround me makes my life better,
makes my work better.
And not just for me, but foreverybody in that space.
(23:18):
So I don't know that I can pointto like a specific cost that I
paid, like personally.
Having said that, I understandin this current political
environment with a push againstDEI, I think the calculation is
probably changing for somepeople in some places.
But I do think even right now,the cost of being a feminist is
overstated.
And that does make me wonderlike, uh, not just what do men
(23:41):
lose, but what do some men thinkthey would lose if they begin
treating women like equals?
And whatever they think theymight lose, is that something
they really want to keep in thefirst place?
Patti (23:52):
Love it, Dan.
It goes back to you know whatyou were just talking about with
the the two different forms.
What was it?
Dan (23:59):
It was co what were the two coactive versus coercive.
So power with versus power over.
Patti (24:06):
Yeah, yeah.
So the first one, right, thepower with is leadership, the
other one is control.
And so, you know, I think thoseare questions we should always
insert.
And I I will say, you know, Dan,when I think about you, um,
because not only do you say theright things and act the right
way, you do the right things andyou consistently do.
(24:26):
And it is, what are you gaining?
Right.
And so when I look at that and Ilook, what are you gaining?
And then what do the womenaround you and the other men
around you gain?
Because you are not a silo.
And it has been fascinating towatch you, right?
And I've watched you over theyears and in lots of only female
rooms because you're alwayssupporting me.
(24:46):
And what I see is the abilityfor the women to not maybe treat
you as one of the girls, butkind of treat you as one of the
girls, right?
We don't have our guards uparound you.
We are able to speak freely.
We are freely exchanging ideas.
We're not wondering what yourulterior motive is.
And look, the bear versus theguy in the forest is a real
(25:07):
freaking deal.
And yes, when we think aboutwomen have to be protected,
every woman is gonna say, yeah,against men.
So if there are no men, we don'tneed protection.
So, like, Dan, really, I lovethat question.
It really gets me to think,because I'm a transformational
leader, because I'm relational,what do the other people get,
not just you?
(25:27):
And I I I love, love, love that.
So um let's let's kind of goback to AI.
I know we need to wrap up soon,right?
But you know, connecting all ofthese amazing questions with AI,
like what would then change,right?
If we had more Dan's in theroom, if we had more women in
decision rooms when it comes toAI.
And, you know, if more womenwere hard coding, not vibe
(25:50):
coding, right?
I can do vibe coding for cryingout loud, but if more women were
doing vibe coding, what would itdo about this electricity?
We know the big thing about AIis it's a mirror, right?
That's all it is.
It's a mirror, it's learning.
So, how do we change the imagethat we see in the mirror if
women are not in the room?
And Lynn, to answer yourquestion, there's a reason women
(26:11):
aren't in the room.
We already know the answer,right?
This is a solvable problem thathas not been solved, and we know
it's coercive.
We understand that.
So, you know, I just um I wantus to think about that question.
What would be different if womenwere hard coding right now?
Lynne (26:28):
Patty, I hope that's one of the questions that women
applying AI is looking atanswering.
I know it, I'm sure it is amongmany of the other questions
we've asked today.
And I will just note one moreshout out to our show notes.
Uh, they're chock full today.
Uh, the UN report on AI andgender equality has some really
(26:50):
interesting data on thatquestion around women in AI.
Um, so the link is in the shownotes.
And I love that one of thesections is framed as a
question.
It asks, how can AI governancehelp accelerate progress towards
gender equality?
Dan (27:07):
And I love that they have that question in there because
it's framing the question as AIhelping to accelerate gender
equality and not expecting thatwe have to get gender equality
fixed first and then AI willsort of flow from there, that
the order of events could happenin the other direction.
I I think that's our time fortoday.
This has been a lovelydiscussion.
Thank you so much uh forlistening in, everybody.
(27:30):
And we're going to wrap up withuh one big takeaway from each of
us uh from today's podcast.
Boy, I think mine is that menprobably should ask questions
and join in the conversation.
And it probably feels less weirdwhen we ask these questions
together.
Lynne (27:45):
I think mine are around um this concept of designing
work and organizations withwomen, right?
Rather than that being ahypothetical question, what does
that look like?
Let's start to answer that.
And I think we know women dolead differently than men.
Let's define that and build thatinto these businesses that we're
(28:10):
designing together.
And then finally, uh, I'm notsaying soft power anymore.
I'm talking about coactivepower, which is what leadership
looks like.
Patti (28:20):
I love that.
Um, so and by the way, softskills are now called power
skills.
So keep that in mind, right?
Okay, so look, I'm gonna ask youguys a question, then I'm gonna
share my takeaway.
What do the names John, Mark, ornot and or David have in common?
Dan (28:39):
John, Mark, or David?
I mean, the obvious thing isthey all sound like men's names.
Lynne (28:44):
Yeah, I was gonna say there's they show up in the
Bible.
Patti (28:50):
All of those are true.
Um, but what research showed usis if you have any one of those
names, not all three combined,but if you are John, if you are
Mark, if you are David, you holdmore corporate board seats than
the entire population of femalecorporate directors combined,
(29:11):
not and or.
And so when I think about how dowe solve this, we already know
how, right?
We are being kept out of theroom, which then goes to so how
are women viewed?
Like we talked about, you know,the power and having a title.
What do we need to do to changewomen from being a resource to
(29:32):
being the source?
What does that look like andwhose job is it?
Love it, Patty.
Lynne (29:40):
So, everybody, thanks for listening today.
We are so grateful that you'rehere with us.
Um, today's episode wassponsored by the long game,
played by women everywhere,often when they can't see the
scoreboard.
Patti (29:55):
Our music was composed by Jake Papanel.
Dan (29:59):
Our cover art was created by Mads Green.
Hello, and welcome back to Listening for the Questions.
I'm Lynn Cuppernal.
I'm a leadership coach and ahealthcare consultant.
I'm also a woman.
And as always, I'm joined by myfriends Dan and Patty, and we
have got some great questionstoday.
Dan (00:31):
Hey everybody, Dan Ward here.
I'm an engineer and militarytechnologist.
I'm also an author and a jugglerand a punk.
And I'm not a woman.
I'm also pretty sure today'stopic is something we have
mentioned on every singleepisode of this podcast so far.
I love it.
And no, the topic is not AI.
Patti (00:48):
And I'm Dr.
Patty Fletcher, a recoveringC-suite executive from big tech,
a leadership futurist working atthe intersection of people,
business, technology, and data,a best-selling author.
And as you guys do not know, umlistening, but my co-hosts do, I
just sit here giggling throughevery intro.
I'm so happy I know everyone'sgender.
(01:09):
Um, Dan, you know, I thinkyou're right.
We talk about today's topic alot.
Mostly you bring it up.
Um, and I'm glad we'rededicating a whole episode to it
in a month that's been dedicatedto our topic.
So let's get started.
What are the questions, people,that we should be asking about
you guessed it, women?
Dan (01:30):
All right.
So is it weird if I go first?
And that's actually my firstquestion.
As a man, is it weird if I askedthe first question in today's
episode?
Patti (01:39):
So I've read this a few times and like from our show
notes, you guys, and it stillmakes me laugh.
So it's such a good one.
So, Dan, look, my reaction whenI read the notes, and my
reaction right now is only youwould make your first question
about whether you, as a man, areallowed to ask a question about
women, and I love it.
(02:00):
And no, I don't think it's weirdbecause I know you're not going
to mansplain being a woman tome.
I think it is just you beingaware.
Lynne (02:08):
Well, whether it's weird or not, it sounds like maybe it
feels weird to you.
So I want us to ask why it feelsweird to you, Dan.
Is it because you're a manasking about women, or because
you're afraid of maybe gettingit wrong?
Or because you think you shouldbe chivalrous and let the women
(02:29):
go first, or because maybe itfeels like this topic belongs to
us and not you.
Patti (02:35):
Ooh, good questions, Lynn.
You know, that also makes mewonder what it says about how
society frames conversationsabout women in the first place.
I mean, if men like Dan, who arepaying attention and doing the
work, if those types of men feellike they need to ask for
permission to engage with thistopic, what does that say about
(02:59):
this topic?
And what does that say about usas a culture and as a people?
And have we made theconversation smaller by creating
the impression that women'stopics are exclusively for
women?
And anyone who knows me knows Ihave a very strong opinion on
gender topics.
So, and if you know if you don'tknow me, you probably know that.
(03:19):
So they may be a little bitsurprised by this next question
I have, which is why shouldn'tDan ask the first question
today?
Lynne (03:28):
Yes.
And if it feels even slightlyweird for Dan to go first, which
let me point out, he totally nowis not doing because we've asked
like 8,000 questions already.
But if it does feel slightlyweird for Dan to ask to go
first, what does that tell usabout what we expect from men
when women are the subject ofconversation?
(03:52):
Are we expecting them to follow,stay quiet?
What?
What are we expecting?
Dan (03:57):
These are great questions.
I love all of them.
And I do want to sort of sitwith the irony for a moment that
today's topic is women.
And we've asked a lot ofquestions about men so far.
And like, is that okay too?
Right?
You know, I think when we talkabout women, maybe one of the
questions we need to ask is likehow men can be part of the
conversation without taking itover, without centering men.
(04:19):
And I'm definitely not askingeither of you to answer any of
those questions.
Patti (04:24):
So, right before we pressed record on this episode,
I was sharing with my co-hostsabout how I can't not start
singing if I even hear one word.
I hear the word irony, Dan, andI think about isn't it ironic
from Alanis Morissette?
I shall sing when we stop therecording.
You're welcome.
Um, but in all seriousness, youknow, Dan, and here's where I
(04:45):
want to go with this.
In my research for disruptors,my book about women who break
the mold, one of the things Ifound out is that women who
broke that mold didn't do it bywaiting for men to figure out
how we as women can be part ofthe conversation and the
solution.
They did it by redefining whatthe conversation was about in
(05:10):
the first place.
So maybe the question isn't howdo men join the conversation
about women or when are theyallowed to do that?
But maybe the question is why dowe keep having a conversation
about women as if women are thevariable that needs to be solved
for, instead of asking, whatkind of world are we trying to
(05:30):
build together?
Lynne (05:31):
Patty, I love the concept of building the world together.
Though I wonder if the questionisn't so much solving for women
as it is building intentionalinclusion.
And so then with that in mind,taking a business pivot, how
might organizations lookdifferent if they'd been
(05:53):
designed with women from thebeginning?
Patti (05:57):
Now that's the gazillion-dollar question we
don't have enough zeros for.
You know, when we talk aboutthat, Lynn, and just thinking
about what you and Dan arebringing up, when we talk about
the intersection of women andwork, we do need to acknowledge
that the rules in pretty muchevery workplace were written
well before women were in theroom, right?
(06:19):
So I want women to askourselves, which rules are we
following?
And who actually wrote them?
And who are they serving, right?
We seem to go back to these samequestions regardless of the pod
topic.
And, you know, are those rulesdesigned to bring us in or are
they designed to keep us out?
Lynne (06:39):
And that got me thinking about a related question about
stories.
Whose stories have we beentelling?
I mean, we're it's March.
It's Women's History Month.
We have been telling a lot ofstories about women.
Whose stories are we telling andwhose stories are we not
telling?
Who are we leaving out?
You know, and related to that, Iguess this is related.
(07:01):
I maybe I just want to ask thisquestion.
Um, who are the specific womenwho shaped your life and work?
How do we tell their stories?
I feel like the stories we tellduring Women's History Month are
a God love them, about the samefew women, right?
I love you, Rosa Parks.
I love you, Harriet Tubman, Ilove you, Susan B.
(07:22):
Anthony.
Um what about the women whoshaped our lives and work?
And how do we tell theirstories?
How did they help us write newrules and set new standards that
we benefit from?
I mean, I certainly know mymother and her friends did.
And then finally, maybe we ask,what were they carrying that
(07:42):
we've never thought to ask themabout?
Dan (07:44):
Ooh, Lynn, I love that last question in particular.
Asking not just what stories arebeing told and not told, but
really understanding thosestories and what were some of
these women carrying that wedidn't hear about before.
And so as we think aboutlistening to stories, that made
me think of listening to music,which made me think of a blues
musician named Kev Moe, who hasa terrific song called Put a
(08:05):
Woman in Charge.
Uh, we'll put a link in the shownotes.
Uh the song basically saysthings in the world would be
better for everyone if womenwere in charge.
And like, amen, brother, yes.
But to put it in the form of aquestion though, what if Kev Moe
is right?
What if building a moreequitable world where more women
are in leadership positions?
What if that made things betterfor everyone?
(08:26):
And then how can we take stepsnow to help build that kind of a
world?
Let's pause on that assumptionfor a moment.
Lynne (08:35):
How do women lead differently than men?
And by the way, there I justread a kick-ass article in Fast
Company today about why womenover 50 specifically are
kick-ass leaders.
I am paraphrasing what the titlewas, um, and why more companies
should be hiring them?
And there's like nine amazingreasons, including we live
(08:58):
longer, so you should put us inpositions of leadership and
power because we're going to bearound longer.
Um, but just getting back tothis concept of how do women
lead differently than men, likewhat makes it better?
Is it better?
Is vulnerability rewardeddifferently for men than women
(09:18):
in the workplace?
And if it is, and I think it is,how does that affect how we
lead?
So, Patty, what questions alongthese lines came up for you when
you were writing Disruptors?
Patti (09:31):
Lynn, first of all, um, I don't care what anyone says, you
come up with really good titlesfor blogs and stuff.
And if it wasn't the title, itshould have been.
Um, because yeah, it would goviral.
Um, so thank you for asking, bythe way.
I I do appreciate that.
And I do, I not only am I awoman over 50, I've been
studying women over 50 for over25 years, and I really loved it.
(09:54):
And that article, definitelycheck it out.
We'll put it in the show notes.
Because even for me, there are afew things in there that were
either reframed or a bit new,and I love, love, love that.
So, look, lots of questions cameup, and I'm just gonna rattle
off some of them if it's okaywith you guys, right?
So the and these are by the way,um, evergreen um questions.
So not only they come through inthe book Disruptors, which was
(10:15):
published in 2018, they've beencoming through since way before
I started on this work.
They came through when I firstdid, and they're still relevant
today.
So a few that come to mind ifwomen um often hold real power
without formal power, right?
They're given theresponsibility, but not the
authority.
What does that cost them?
(10:36):
And what does it cost theorganizations that don't see it?
Let that sit with you for aminute.
The next ones aretransformational leadership.
So transformational leadershipand transactional leadership.
There are multiple types ofleadership forms, but
transactional is very kind ofquig pro crow, right?
I pay you money, you give mesomething.
(10:56):
So the first one's like kind ofpower and control.
The other one is like we allbuild this together.
There's a vision, looks totallydifferent, right?
That's when we start hearingpeople in the knowledge economy
really start to be like, I'mgonna work for this brand
because it aligns with thethings that I want to do and how
I want to do them in the change.
So transformational leaders arethere, they take folks from
(11:17):
where they are to something theycould not even believe they
could achieve, and they achieveit together.
So, in transformationalleadership, very human-oriented,
um, it is the form that is mostconducive to people with female
leadership traits, the kind thatenables people to change
themselves rather than compete,compelling them to comply.
(11:42):
It produces better outcomes,right?
It's all the tech companies, itproduces better outcomes.
But yet we women, although we'rethe best at this, we're still
seen as soft, right?
Orlyn, like you say, vulnerable.
And you know, what structuralincentives keep that
transactional leadership, oftenassociated with male leadership
traits, dominant even when theevidence points to the need
(12:07):
elsewhere?
Why do they still exist?
And then I'll throw one lastconcept out there for you.
Women who've been told to actmore like a man, and we've seen
that written in popular press bymen and women, including Cheryl
Sandberg and Lean Inn, andwe'll, you know, don't need to
talk about that today, but wecan, because that's pretty much
the message.
Um, we haven't closed the gapbecause of right that with that
(12:30):
topic.
We just haven't act more like aman, assimilate, right, to those
constructs that were defined bymen and for them.
So, what exactly is the cost ofdemanding women to assimilate,
right?
And who's paying it?
Lynne (12:44):
Oh, Patty, I think we know who's paying it.
I know we're not answeringquestions.
You know, before we go on, Ihave one go back.
You rattled off a lot of reallygood questions that came up as
you were writing disruptors.
Um I I do want to ask this one,and I think you can answer.
If women hold real power withoutformal power, can you just say
(13:06):
more about that?
What does that look like?
Patti (13:08):
So there's multiple ways to answer this, right?
So, first, women have a lot ofpower.
We are 90% of all consumerbuying decisions, where our
family goes on vacation, theproducts we buy, what doctors we
see, right?
All of those things.
We have a lot of power in termsof the number of degrees that we
have, right?
All of that.
But we also have that power withtransformational leadership
(13:30):
inherently, and we've talkedabout this in other episodes, we
are relational in our decisionmaking.
So when we make a decisionaround, like if we're in the
boardroom and it's a decisionabout, you know, mergers and
acquisitions, or it's a decisionaround where we invest or
divest, or it's a hiringdecision as a middle manager, we
tend to make the best decisionsbecause we're looking at them in
(13:52):
a very circular way.
What would be the biggest impacton this stakeholder or this
program or whatever?
That's how we're wired.
It's called relational decisionmaking.
Put that over to what does thatmean in a formal setting?
So, what we see forever is thatwomen are being held accountable
for fixing things in a companywithout the formal title to go
(14:17):
with it, head of CEO, whatever.
We women have understood, and itcould be by necessity, but how
we are is we do not believe inpower of the position.
We've worked with plenty ofpeople who are put into
positions of power, not earningpositions of leadership, right?
Because leaders are only leaderswhen followers enable them to
be.
(14:37):
And that is what women know.
So we believe in the power ofthe platform.
Here is a problem I care deeplyabout, and I want to solve it,
and that's becoming part of thepurpose of the work that I am
doing here, and we use that toattract other people who believe
in solving that problem or atleast part of it.
That's what that means.
Great question.
Dan (14:58):
So, way back in the early 2000s, Tom Peters rather
famously said, women have allthe money and make all the
decisions.
And he was talking in terms oflike consumer decisions and
consumer spending, and he wasreally poking at marketers for
ignoring women and not includingthem at not just as targets, but
at the table to make some ofthese marketing decisions and
(15:19):
marketing messages.
And so, Pappy, that lines up uhreally well with what you were
saying.
Uh, and then, you know, I thinkthis idea of real power versus
formal power, uh, soft power andinfluence beyond someone's
title, their rank, theirofficial authority, the uh terms
coactive power versus coercivepower uh come to mind.
Uh coactive power is what wehave, you know, sort of power
(15:42):
with, as opposed to coercivepower, which is power over or
power to.
And that coactive power uh,frankly, is way more effective
and also tends to be genderedand aligned with sort of a
feminine approach to leadership.
And uh despite that gendering,it's my favorite way to get
stuff done is power with, notpower over, coactive versus
(16:05):
coercive, so collaborativeinstead of directive.
Lynne (16:08):
I am 100% down with renaming soft power to coactive
power, right?
Let's just get rid of softpower.
What the hell does that meananyway?
Um, I'm here for it.
Coactive power.
I wanted to go back to this ideaof the the women whose stories
we're not telling.
I've just been thinking aboutthat uh this month, my mother,
(16:31):
my grandmother.
Um, and that made me think alsoabout what questions have women
historically not been allowed toask?
And what are the questions womenare still afraid to ask out
loud?
Patty, I'd love for you toanswer that last one.
Patti (16:51):
What are the questions we're afraid to ask out loud?
I think the questions that themore vulnerable the question,
um, the more likely we're notgoing to ask them, especially if
it's a question that relates toa family matter or right, all of
those kinds of like morepersonal that bridge from a
workplace that bridge to thatbecause we gotta ask ourselves
(17:14):
why.
Is it because we know that thereis a belief, not an
understanding, not whatever, butan actual belief that we cannot
do more than one thing at atime.
We can't be moms and go sit in aboardroom, right?
I think that's really animportant one.
The next question, I'm justgonna say it, even in the
executive ranks, is there is somuch pressure on women to
(17:36):
already know what they're doing,right?
So we're hired for our expertiseand experience, not for our
potential, that we're afraid toask for help when we don't know
something.
We are afraid to double down onquestions.
I will say the higher up you go,the less likely you give a crap.
But that's not okay, right?
(17:57):
And so why are we afraid to askthose questions that might put
us in a place of um, I don'tknow what I'm doing, versus a
place of I'm really curious.
I'll figure this out, but I'mreally curious about what you
meant by X, Y, and Z.
We take, we take the blame forquestions um that try to help us
(18:17):
close gaps.
And I those are the ones thatcome to mind.
Lynne (18:20):
Yes.
I have one slight correction.
I think when we are in the car,particularly with a man, we are
not afraid to ask for help toget somewhere.
We are the ones who will ask forthe directions.
Just putting that out there.
Dan (18:33):
And I'll jump in and say I always appreciate it when
somebody in the car asks, like,should you be turning left here?
Phew.
Probably I should be turningleft ear.
So thank you.
And I do want to give a shoutout to uh Mary Parker Follett uh
was Teddy Roosevelt's managementconsultant back in the early
1900s.
She was the one who coined theterm coactive power versus
coercive power.
I had to Google her real quickand get her name correct.
(18:56):
I was thinking of an author uhwho has a different last name.
But anyway, Mary Parker Follett,shout out to her.
Man, I wish I had come acrossher writing earlier in my
career.
I'm kind of uh pissed that shedidn't show up in my management
education, and the uh the stuffthat she wrote is still
remarkably readable, insightful,impression, way ahead of her
time.
Anyway, Mary Parker Follett,check her out.
We'll put a link to her in theshow notes too.
Patti (19:17):
I love it.
Okay, guys, so look, as much asI want to stay on this topic, I
want to do a little switch.
You won't be shocked.
And yes, it's my two favoriteletters.
One guess.
One guess, you guys.
What do you think it is?
EQ?
Dan (19:30):
Hmm.
I got nothing.
I can't think of anything.
Patti (19:37):
You know what can help you with that, Dan and Lynn?
AI.
Is it AI?
What?
So look, we know AI is largelybeing built without women at the
lead, right?
Without women in the room.
Um, and you can name the CEOs ofall the big AI companies.
They're all going to be men.
You can look at every panel,they're all going to be men.
(19:58):
Unless Dan is on the panel, thenit will be all women in Dan.
And Google's AI overview says,by the way, women are
significantly underrepresentedin the AI workforce, and they
hold only 10% to 16% ofAI-related C-suite and technical
leadership positions.
Hmm.
So what happens to a technologylike AI that is our electricity?
(20:24):
It already has crossed over,right?
It is our electricity as a humanrace.
It's what connects all of us,it's how we work, it's all that
fun stuff, and now how we think.
What happens when that kind oftechnology is developed without
input from women?
It is killing me not to answerthis and be really sarcastic.
Dan (20:46):
And Patty, I love that question.
It's such an important question.
And I think there is ahistorical precedent.
So I'll keep going with thishistorical theme here, because I
wrote about a similar situationin my book, Lyft.
Lyft is about aviation inventorsin the late 1800s, the people
who tried to build flyingmachines before the Wrights came
along and had their firstsuccessful flight in 1903.
Big surprise, it's a lot ofdudes doing this work.
(21:07):
But the one thing I thought wasso interesting about the history
of that era is the men who madethe most progress on inventing
airplanes were the ones whoworked the most closely with
women.
Like the Wright brothers had asister.
Her name was Catherine.
Orville even said, when theworld speaks of the rights, it
must include our sister.
And would you believe, andPatty, I know this will not come
(21:27):
as a shock to you, but would youbelieve the French press
referred to Catherine Wright asthe third right brother?
Doggone it.
They are so close.
Like they're they're almostthere.
They at least acknowledged her,which so many others didn't do.
Calling her the third rightbrother, what a miss.
Um my question is why have wenot learned this already?
(21:49):
Like the historical record ofprogress is actually super
clear, whether we're talkingabout progress in tech or social
movements or or any kind ofprogress.
Excluding women makes thingsworse.
Including women makes thingsbetter.
You can see that in the 1800s.
It was true then.
You can see it today.
Why are we choosing not to learnthat?
Lynne (22:08):
Dan, that was such a good question.
I'm gonna repeat it.
Why are we choosing not to learnthat?
And I just have to say, callingher the right brother wasn't
exactly almost getting it right.
Had to go there for a second.
So back to your question, Dan,why are we choosing not to learn
that?
I wonder if it's because somemen fear losing something when
(22:35):
women are included.
So I want to know what does itcost a man to show up as a
feminist at work?
Dan, I do want you to answerthat question.
Dan (22:47):
Uh well, thank you for this question.
And I'm ha ha, Patty, I get toanswer one.
Patti (22:52):
Stop showing off, Dan.
Dan (22:56):
All right.
Well, I do, I think this is aninteresting question.
When I saw it on the show notes,I had to stop and think because
I'm kind of tempted to say therewas no cost for me, uh, at least
no cost that wasn't outweighedby the benefits.
Like for me, in my experience, Ithink being a feminist is a net
game.
You know, supporting the womenaround me makes my life better,
makes my work better.
And not just for me, but foreverybody in that space.
(23:18):
So I don't know that I can pointto like a specific cost that I
paid, like personally.
Having said that, I understandin this current political
environment with a push againstDEI, I think the calculation is
probably changing for somepeople in some places.
But I do think even right now,the cost of being a feminist is
overstated.
And that does make me wonderlike, uh, not just what do men
(23:41):
lose, but what do some men thinkthey would lose if they begin
treating women like equals?
And whatever they think theymight lose, is that something
they really want to keep in thefirst place?
Patti (23:52):
Love it, Dan.
It goes back to you know whatyou were just talking about with
the the two different forms.
What was it?
Dan (23:59):
It was co what were the two coactive versus coercive.
So power with versus power over.
Patti (24:06):
Yeah, yeah.
So the first one, right, thepower with is leadership, the
other one is control.
And so, you know, I think thoseare questions we should always
insert.
And I I will say, you know, Dan,when I think about you, um,
because not only do you say theright things and act the right
way, you do the right things andyou consistently do.
(24:26):
And it is, what are you gaining?
Right.
And so when I look at that and Ilook, what are you gaining?
And then what do the womenaround you and the other men
around you gain?
Because you are not a silo.
And it has been fascinating towatch you, right?
And I've watched you over theyears and in lots of only female
rooms because you're alwayssupporting me.
(24:46):
And what I see is the abilityfor the women to not maybe treat
you as one of the girls, butkind of treat you as one of the
girls, right?
We don't have our guards uparound you.
We are able to speak freely.
We are freely exchanging ideas.
We're not wondering what yourulterior motive is.
And look, the bear versus theguy in the forest is a real
(25:07):
freaking deal.
And yes, when we think aboutwomen have to be protected,
every woman is gonna say, yeah,against men.
So if there are no men, we don'tneed protection.
So, like, Dan, really, I lovethat question.
It really gets me to think,because I'm a transformational
leader, because I'm relational,what do the other people get,
not just you?
(25:27):
And I I I love, love, love that.
So um let's let's kind of goback to AI.
I know we need to wrap up soon,right?
But you know, connecting all ofthese amazing questions with AI,
like what would then change,right?
If we had more Dan's in theroom, if we had more women in
decision rooms when it comes toAI.
And, you know, if more womenwere hard coding, not vibe
(25:50):
coding, right?
I can do vibe coding for cryingout loud, but if more women were
doing vibe coding, what would itdo about this electricity?
We know the big thing about AIis it's a mirror, right?
That's all it is.
It's a mirror, it's learning.
So, how do we change the imagethat we see in the mirror if
women are not in the room?
And Lynn, to answer yourquestion, there's a reason women
(26:11):
aren't in the room.
We already know the answer,right?
This is a solvable problem thathas not been solved, and we know
it's coercive.
We understand that.
So, you know, I just um I wantus to think about that question.
What would be different if womenwere hard coding right now?
Lynne (26:28):
Patty, I hope that's one of the questions that women
applying AI is looking atanswering.
I know it, I'm sure it is amongmany of the other questions
we've asked today.
And I will just note one moreshout out to our show notes.
Uh, they're chock full today.
Uh, the UN report on AI andgender equality has some really
(26:50):
interesting data on thatquestion around women in AI.
Um, so the link is in the shownotes.
And I love that one of thesections is framed as a
question.
It asks, how can AI governancehelp accelerate progress towards
gender equality?
Dan (27:07):
And I love that they have that question in there because
it's framing the question as AIhelping to accelerate gender
equality and not expecting thatwe have to get gender equality
fixed first and then AI willsort of flow from there, that
the order of events could happenin the other direction.
I I think that's our time fortoday.
This has been a lovelydiscussion.
Thank you so much uh forlistening in, everybody.
(27:30):
And we're going to wrap up withuh one big takeaway from each of
us uh from today's podcast.
Boy, I think mine is that menprobably should ask questions
and join in the conversation.
And it probably feels less weirdwhen we ask these questions
together.
Lynne (27:45):
I think mine are around um this concept of designing
work and organizations withwomen, right?
Rather than that being ahypothetical question, what does
that look like?
Let's start to answer that.
And I think we know women dolead differently than men.
Let's define that and build thatinto these businesses that we're
(28:10):
designing together.
And then finally, uh, I'm notsaying soft power anymore.
I'm talking about coactivepower, which is what leadership
looks like.
Patti (28:20):
I love that.
Um, so and by the way, softskills are now called power
skills.
So keep that in mind, right?
Okay, so look, I'm gonna ask youguys a question, then I'm gonna
share my takeaway.
What do the names John, Mark, ornot and or David have in common?
Dan (28:39):
John, Mark, or David?
I mean, the obvious thing isthey all sound like men's names.
Lynne (28:44):
Yeah, I was gonna say there's they show up in the
Bible.
Patti (28:50):
All of those are true.
Um, but what research showed usis if you have any one of those
names, not all three combined,but if you are John, if you are
Mark, if you are David, you holdmore corporate board seats than
the entire population of femalecorporate directors combined,
(29:11):
not and or.
And so when I think about how dowe solve this, we already know
how, right?
We are being kept out of theroom, which then goes to so how
are women viewed?
Like we talked about, you know,the power and having a title.
What do we need to do to changewomen from being a resource to
(29:32):
being the source?
What does that look like andwhose job is it?
Love it, Patty.
Lynne (29:40):
So, everybody, thanks for listening today.
We are so grateful that you'rehere with us.
Um, today's episode wassponsored by the long game,
played by women everywhere,often when they can't see the
scoreboard.
Patti (29:55):
Our music was composed by Jake Papanel.
Dan (29:59):
Our cover art was created by Mads Green.
Popular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.