May 23, 2024 • 53 mins
In this episode VEST Members talk to gender-inclusive culture expert Brad Johnson, Professor of Psychology at the United States Naval Academy and Faculty Associate at John Hopkins University, about the skills and benefits men earn when they engage in advocating for women at work. The misconceptions and challenges that often get in the way of men engaging in gender-equity advocacy and the economics of inclusive workspaces. Special thanks to VEST Member, Jessica Dietrich, Director of Government Relations and Policy for Hunger Free Oklahoma for moderating this session.
Join us as we delve into the multifaceted roles men can play as allies, mentors, and advocates. We also uncover the economic benefits of inclusive workspaces and how intersectionality further complicates women's professional journeys, especially for women of color. Our discussion reveals how evaluations often differ for men and women. We also dissect the evolving dynamics of remote and hybrid work, generational shifts in expectations for work-life balance and how men's engagement in domestic duties is crucial for supporting women's career growth.
Show Notes
- Stanford Study on Language Bias in Performance Reviews
- Brotopia: Breaking Up the Boys' Club of Silicon Valley by Emily Chang
- Fair Play by Eve Rodsky
Guest Bios
Jessica Dietrich is a VEST Member and the Director of Government Relations and Policy for Hunger Free Oklahoma. In her free time you can find Jessica spending time with her Little through Big Brothers Big Sisters, serving as a violinist and board president for Oklahoma Chamber Symphony, and enjoying time at her home in OKC with her spouse and small fleet of pets including dogs, cats, and chickens.
Brad Johnson, PhD, is a Professor of Psychology in the Department of Leadership, Ethics and Law at the United States Naval Academy, and a Faculty Associate in the Graduate School of Education at Johns Hopkins University. A clinical psychologist, Dr. Johnson is a mentoring expert specializing in developing gender-inclusive mentoring cultures for organizations around the globe. Dr. Johnson is the author of numerous publications including 14 books, including: Good Guys: How Men Can Become Better Allies for Women in the Workplace, Athena Rising: How and Why Men Should Mentor Women (both with David Smith), and The Elements of Mentoring 3rd Ed. (with Charles Ridley).
If you enjoyed the episode share it with a friend, leave us a review and don't forget to hit the subscribe button. If you are ready to take your career and business to the next level, apply to join our community of professional women, all eager to help you get there and stay there. Check out our VEST Membership and apply today! www.VESTHer.co
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Hey everyone, this is Erica Lucas, your host and
founding member of Vest, anorganization connecting women
across industries, regions andcareer levels so that together
we can expedite the pipeline ofmore women in positions of power
and influence.
Welcome to another episode ofthe Vestor Podcast, where we
(00:23):
explore the invisible barriersholding women back in the
workplace and share stories ofwomen building power
collectively.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Thinking more on some of the common pitfalls or
mistakes that men may make whenthey're attempting to mentor or
advocate for women.
What are those and how can theyavoid them?
Speaker 3 (00:48):
Number one men failing to listen and also
avoiding assumptions about women.
You know, what do women want?
Well, women are not a monolith.
So I need to do the generouslistening and actually ask you
know, what would it look like ifI was showing up in a way that
is helpful?
I think men also get it wrongby expecting women to educate
(01:11):
them about gender in theworkplace versus going out and
doing their own self-education.
There's so much written,there's so many podcasts,
there's so many great articlesabout gender bias and gender
difference in the workplace.
If men would do a bit ofself-educating before they show
up in spaces like this, I thinkthat would be incredibly helpful
(01:35):
.
I think sometimes we see menshowing up with an attitude
about what allyship is.
That gets it wrong from thestart.
Men get together in kind of asiloed way and think to
themselves what are we going todo for women versus this
attitude of partnership andcollaboration?
How are we going to go theretogether?
And then one other one, jessica, that comes up a lot is men's
(01:59):
self-labeling as allies.
It drives me crazy.
Dave and I do a lot of trainingfor men on better allyship and
inclusive leadership, and menwill sometimes say, hey, when do
I get my certificate on, youknow, being an ally and we're
always saying, I'm sorry,there's not a destination here.
We're always trying to getbetter and there's not a finish
(02:23):
line better and there's not afinish line.
Speaker 4 (02:29):
In this episode, best Members talk to
gender-inclusive culture expertBrad Johnson, professor of
psychology at the United StatesNaval Academy and faculty
associate at Johns HopkinsUniversity, about the skills and
benefits men earn when theyengage in advocating for women
at work.
Brad also talks about themisconceptions and challenges
that often get in the way of menengaging in gender equity
advocacy.
We also talk about theeconomics of inclusive
(02:51):
workspaces, intersectionalityand more.
Special thanks to BEST memberJessica Dietrich, director of
Government Relations and Policyfor Hunger-Free Oklahoma, for
moderating this session.
Hunger Free Oklahoma formoderating this session.
For Brad and Jessica's full bioand show notes, go to
wwwbestherco.
Forward slash podcast.
This episode is brought to youby VEST, a coaching platform,
(03:18):
peer network and investment fundfor women.
To learn more about how VESTsupports and invests in women
professionals and solutionsenabling women's labor
participation and economicmobility, go to wwwbestherco.
This conversation was part of amore private coaching session
with best members and has beenrepurposed to accommodate this
episode.
If you enjoyed the episode,share it with a friend and don't
forget to leave us a review.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
I want to start off with somewhat of a broad
question.
What inspired you to focus onthis topic of men mentoring and
advocating for women in theworkplace?
Speaker 3 (03:53):
Yes, this may not surprise you, we get that
question a lot, my co-author,dave Smith, and I.
So let me just kind of give youmy Um.
So let me just kind of give youmy and I think of this as my
why.
You know, and part of ouradvice to men often who need to
be better in this space and needto be showing up as inclusive
(04:13):
leaders, is you better getcomfortable with your why,
because people are going to wantto know why you're doing this.
And so for me, uh, it's acombination of several things.
It's 30 years of researching,mentoring, sponsoring
relationships in the workplaceand noticing the data that
(04:33):
consistently shows that womensimply don't get access to those
developmental relationships theway that men do.
Men do, and even when they arementored, they often don't get
the same quality of mentoringand they often don't get
(04:53):
sponsored as part of thatrelationship and men do.
So I've noticed thosedisparities.
I've been curious about whythat is so.
The academic piece, I think,factors in there's a personal
element for me.
I've got one sister, onesibling.
We both, shannon and I bothbecame naval officers right
(05:15):
after we got our PhDs inclinical psych.
I don't know if she followed inmy footsteps or we were both
just kind of oriented topsychology.
But I stayed active duty forfour years as an officer.
My sister has stayed her entirecareer.
She's now at 30 years.
She's a very senior Navycaptain.
She's had combat deployments toIraq and Afghanistan.
(05:36):
She's been on aircraft carriers.
She is a warrior.
And over those 30 years I havehad almost weekly conversations
with my sister about headwindsthat she encounters, that I
never have, right, just genderdifferences.
We had the same job.
Shannon is told, you know,probably at least once a month.
(05:58):
Hey, you know, you should smilemore.
No one's ever said that to me.
Or, you know, when you givefeedback to men you're
emasculating, right, you're alittle too aggressive.
Nobody's ever said that to me.
She was even shamed once forrunning so fast on a physical
fitness test.
She beat all the guys and wastold hey, maybe you should tone
(06:19):
that down a little bit becausethe guys feel bad, down a little
bit, because the guys feel bad.
It's just mind-boggling to mewhat my sister based on nothing
more than gender encounters.
So I think that's part of it.
And then, you know, I've spentmy career at the Naval Academy
(06:41):
and I really think that if moremen were exposed to the women at
the Naval Academy who are aboutto go out and lead Marines and
sailors in combat, they wouldhave an easier time getting over
some of their gender bias.
They would very quickly beexposed to these women who are
ready to lead from day one and Ithink in terms of mitigating
(07:03):
some bias about women inleadership and women in
competence I've had someprivilege just being around
these young women so I think youput all of those things
together that kind of, I thinkis a bit about why I started
down this road.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
I love and Monica put this in the chat too that you
had those conversations withyour sister.
I know a lot of us havesiblings and I know I personally
haven't had that conversationwith my brother, so it's a
fascinating lens to kind ofbring to this through that
family dynamic.
So have you encountered anyresistance from men or women in
(07:44):
this process?
Speaker 3 (07:45):
Yes, both, and it's interesting and there are
different reasons for theresistance and I think you know
they both make sense indifferent ways.
But let me start with women.
You know organizations likethis, you know let's just talk
about Vestur, or women'sconferences, or women's ERGs, in
(08:07):
most companies, women'snetworks.
These have traditionally beensafe spaces, you know, for women
to be together to talk aboutwhat they're experiencing, to
talk about bias and headwinds,and you know that daily death by
a thousand cuts all themicroaggressions and exclusions
they encounter, and I thinkthey've served a really
(08:29):
important purpose.
These have been places forwomen to gather and you know.
So when you start saying, hey,we should invite men into these
conversations or into thesespaces, understandably I think a
lot of women, or some at atleast, will say what we don't
need men here, we don't want menhere, this is kind of our space
(08:50):
.
Want to have great empathy forthat.
I think it makes terrific sense.
I think the problem, of course,if men are not part of the
conversation, it's going to bean echo chamber and this is why
the World Bank estimates we haveI think the most recent
estimate is 135 years toactually get to equity and
(09:10):
things like pay because theprogress is glacial.
Men tend to look at this andsee this as a women's issue.
They think it's a gender thing,so it doesn't involve me and
they just don't engage.
So we need to bring men in.
But I think the way men show upis important and we can
certainly talk more about that.
(09:32):
I think women, too, aresometimes concerned about.
You know, I mentioned my why.
What's his thing?
Why is he doing this?
Is it performative, right?
Is he doing it to look good infront of the boss?
Is he trying to woo women?
Is he trying to get higherperformance evaluation?
So he's just showing upperformatively in these spaces
(09:54):
but he's not really acting itout.
He's just throwing on his allycape when he thinks people are
watching.
So I understand that concern aswell.
I think people want to justkind of get a sense of is this
authentic or not?
For men.
We have gotten different kindsof resistance and pushback.
(10:14):
We hear men say things like whyare we talking about gender?
We solved this in the 60s,right?
It's a level playing field now,and I see women down the hall.
So what's the problem?
We have women here, and whatwe're, of course, not getting to
is do we really have womeninvolved in leadership?
What are those womenexperiencing in the workplace?
(10:38):
Those men we have some work todo in just helping them
understand what women experiencein ways that perhaps men don't.
Men also can suffer zero-sumthinking, right?
Hey, if we're promoting women,if we're spending all of these
resources on DE&I, then I, as amajority male, I'm going to lose
(11:00):
in some way, and I thinkobviously that's a fallacy.
We find that when we get toreal gender balance in
leadership, meaningfully, thepie just grows for everybody.
Right, we have more opportunity, more advancement, and I think
we have work to do helping thosemen with zero-sum thinking.
And then, finally, you know,dave and I hold men's feet to
(11:21):
the fire, often about makingyourself accountable, to hold
other men accountable in theworkplace.
So when you hear biasedcomments or sexist jokes, you
have an obligation to saysomething and disrupt, and I
know men sometimes feel anxietyabout this.
You know I don't want to sufferthe wimp penalty.
(11:42):
I don't want to lose my mancard.
This makes me anxious, so Ijust stay on the sidelines.
I don't want to suffer the wimppenalty.
I don't want to lose my mancard.
This makes me anxious, so Ijust stay on the sidelines.
I don't engage, so those arejust a few of the things that I
think we encounter.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
You mentioned some of the challenges that men may
face in advocating for women,and you've already named a few,
but thinking more on some of thecommon pitfalls or mistakes
that men may make when they'reattempting to mentor, advocate
for women, what are those andhow can they avoid them?
Speaker 3 (12:15):
There are so many.
How long is this show today?
There are a lot and I'mguessing I'm going to name a few
, but I'm guessing that women onthe call today could come up
with a bunch of others too.
I'll just go through some thatkind of I think occur over and
over again.
Number one men failing tolisten, men just showing up and
(12:39):
talking.
Men maybe showing up at anevent, you know, like a women's
conference or a women's ERGevent, and then trying to take
over and speak for women, or itlands the wrong way every time.
So simply not showing up, withgenerous listening and also
avoiding assumptions about women.
(13:01):
What do women want?
Well, women are not a monolith.
So I need to do the generouslistening and actually ask you
know, what would it look like ifI was showing up in a way that
is helpful?
I think men also get it wrongby expecting women to educate
them about gender in theworkplace versus going out and
(13:24):
doing their own self-education.
There's so much written,there's so many podcasts,
there's so many great articlesabout gender bias and gender
difference in the workplace.
If men would do a bit ofself-educating before they show
up in spaces like this, I thinkthat would be incredibly helpful
in spaces like this.
(13:46):
I think that would beincredibly helpful.
I think sometimes we see menshowing up with an attitude
about what allyship is.
That gets it wrong from thestart.
So men get together in kind ofa siloed way and think to
themselves what are we going todo for women versus this
attitude of partnership andcollaboration?
How are we going to go theretogether?
We have to solve this genderinequity, but we have to do it
(14:09):
together.
So no white knighting, norescuing, no doing things for
women.
This has got to be aboutcollaboration.
And so, boy, I need to show upwith some real curiosity.
What role can I play incollaborating so we can get
there faster?
But I won't assume what thatlooks like.
And then one other one, jessica, that comes up a lot is men's
(14:32):
self-labeling as allies.
It drives me crazy.
Dave and I do a lot of trainingfor men on better allyship and
inclusive leadership, and menwill sometimes say, hey, when do
I get my certificate on beingan ally?
And we're always saying, I'msorry, there's not a destination
here.
We're always trying to getbetter and there's not a finish
(14:56):
line.
So let's not call ourselvesallies.
Let's let minoritized folksdecide if you're an ally to them
.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
I really, I really love that you said there's,
there's, not a destination.
I think in such a goal orientedsociety we can be very set on
what is the end point, what isthe end goal, and I can be
helpful in some things.
But, as you mentioned, this isa, this is a process and maybe
(15:25):
more of a spectrum than tryingto get to an individual
destination, and the principlesare very similar to working in
the racial equity space and thesocioeconomic space.
Nothing about us without us isa common organizing term, and
this is right up that alley.
Us is a common organizing term,and this is right up that alley
(15:48):
.
So lots of great points andit's a good reminder for us.
Those same principles that weknow in other spaces can apply
here.
So how can men navigatepotential challenges or
perceptions, such as the fear ofbeing misunderstood or facing
backlash when activelysupporting women's advancement,
or facing backlash when activelysupporting women's advancement?
Speaker 3 (16:12):
Yeah, great question.
And I just want to revisitsomething I've mentioned before,
dave and I see too many menshow up when invited to women's
spaces or gendered conversationsor maybe it's your company's
International Women's Daycelebration or something like
that.
I see either men not showing upat all, so they miss out
(16:33):
entirely on the opportunity toget better in this space, or the
way they show up landsincorrectly.
So you know, I see men show upand talk too much.
I see men essentiallymansplaining to women how they
should do, how they should getto gender equity or how they can
pretzel themselves to kind offit into a male-centric
(16:55):
workplace, and I wish that moremen could learn to just show up
and realize you don't have totalk, just show up and learn.
Just show up and listen,improve your gender intelligence
, your GQ and, while you're atit, improve your cultural
intelligence.
Let's not forget about theintersections.
So listen and learn.
(17:15):
At some point, as you have begunto collaborate with the Women's
Network or Women's Conference,now ask those curious, humble
questions what role can I play?
How can I really do some workto help this organization move
forward?
I'm not sure what that lookslike, but I'm really open to
(17:37):
learning about that.
I think that's the way you dothat.
A second thing I'll mention iswhat Dave and I refer to as
reluctant male syndrome, meaningwhy don't men engage in close
friendships, in mentoring, inany other developmental
connection with women in theworkplace?
(17:58):
And we've found so many reasons.
If you ask men in private whatthis is about, why they stay on
the sidelines, why they'reafraid to engage, you hear so
many things Anxiety, right, Idon't want to say or do the
wrong thing, so it's not worthit for me.
Maybe I'm afraid of gossip.
I start mentoring a juniorwoman.
(18:19):
Will people begin talking?
That sounds scary.
I don't want to risk that.
There's implicit bias, right.
There's this interestingresearch in psychology called
the women are wonderful effect.
So ask men, what do you thinkof women?
And you get positive language.
Well, women are great.
I love women.
(18:39):
They're kind, they're gentle,they're caring.
But in all of the language thatyou get, you're not hearing
language about competence andabout leadership and about
readiness to step up into thenext thing, whatever it is.
So if that is going on for meand I'm not even aware of it,
maybe I'm not offering mentoringand sponsoring, and then we
(19:03):
can't ignore Me Too.
Right, me Too comes along andwe're looking at research from
Bloomberg, for example Post MeToo.
Showing about 60% of men inAmerica are saying Post Me Too.
Sorry, I'm not mentoring women,it's too dangerous, too scary,
too risky.
A lot of false narratives aboutMe Too.
(19:23):
You know, me Too is prettystraightforward Women would love
to come to work and not beassaulted or harassed.
Super low bar for men to getover.
But instead of that you mayhear the false narratives that
it's just, it's too dangerous.
So solution for that, I meanreally there's only one.
I'm a psychologist and I justam always recommending to men to
(19:47):
self-treat for that anxietyusing exposure therapy Boy, more
mentoring, more coffee, morelunches, more conversations.
That's the only way youovercome that.
But don't make your anxiety herproblem.
You'd need to just engage a bitmore.
So those are just some of thethings.
(20:08):
I'm sure others on the callwould have other thoughts about
that.
Speaker 5 (20:13):
This is a little bit of a different angle on that and
maybe you'll cover this later,but I wonder what can women do
to put men at ease and make themfeel more comfortable?
Sometimes I feel like we needto take a leadership role so
that, you know, we can allaysome of those, those fears and
(20:35):
concerns.
Speaker 3 (20:36):
Yeah, yeah, I.
I think that's a brilliantquestion, joanne.
I my only reluctance is I don'twant to give women one more
thing they have to do to get tomore equity and fairness and
parity in the workplace.
You know you have enough officehousework on your plate, you
know, compared to men you know Idon't know, others may have
(21:28):
great ideas about this I oftentell men, you know, look, if
you've got a lot of anxiety, forexample, about a closed door
meeting with women and I hearthis from a lot of men I'm sorry
I won.
But number two please don't haveclosed door meetings with men.
It's not fair.
If you've got some policy likethat, at least make it equal so
that everybody has the same kindof access to you, because
otherwise you're sendingmessages to everyone in the
workplace that women are somehowrisky or dangerous or, who
knows, maybe you don't trustyourself alone in a meeting.
(21:49):
One other thought I have aboutthat, joanne, is just to suggest
, you know, group mentoring.
How about if it's a senior maleexecutive?
Would he be comfortable hosting, you know, a conversation or
coffee with three women who areinterested in moving up?
Maybe that will help.
I'm open to anything.
(22:11):
I just don't want to make ither problem that he has anxiety
about that.
Speaker 2 (22:19):
Thanks for the question, Joanne.
Thank you.
Speaker 6 (22:22):
This is Monica and I'm watching Hannah add about
something that I was sort ofthinking about, which is you
know how, as a woman, one couldbe as sort of specific as
possible about what is helpfulor what is desired.
But I'm also sort of not quitesure about that because number
one probably, women have beendoing that for a long time and
(22:45):
does it get taken seriously oracknowledged?
You know, just saying it againdoesn't necessarily make it
different.
And also, the other thing is,you know, if so much of the
different treatment is just sortof in the culture, women may
not know, like what they'remissing, what we're missing out
on.
So how to even say I will.
(23:07):
You know, I am really lookingfor a mentorship that does X, y
and Z.
Well, you know, we may not havethe kind of exposure to know
what the most effective thingsare, and men may or may not
realize if they're doingsomething you know what they're
doing because it could bepotentially so natural in that
kind of environment.
So I definitely hear it's notexactly another job for us to
(23:31):
take on, to solve, but in a wayit sort of is.
But we might not even know whatwe don't know.
Speaker 3 (23:36):
Yeah, you know it's interesting.
You say that, monica, cheryl.
In terms of initiating amentorship, you know, I think
both ways we could kind of talkabout that.
I often hear from men.
I do see these talented juniorwomen around me at work and I
know I should offer a mentoringconversation.
(23:56):
I'm just not sure what thatsounds like and I don't want to
get it wrong.
I don't want it to land thewrong way.
So I avoid and we're constantly, I think, just having to coach
men on how this is not a heavylift.
But don't say something to herlike I'd like to mentor you,
right?
That sounds creepy and shedoesn't know what it means.
(24:18):
But how about?
Hey, I saw you do blank lastweek and I thought that was
terrific.
I was thinking to myself wow,the hiring committee sure got it
right, bringing you on board.
I hope we can keep you If youever want to drop by and just
chat about next steps and how Ican contribute.
That's not really a challenge.
(24:38):
And then I think that women areoften curious about how do I
initiate, maybe initiating up,how do I initiate that
conversation?
Sheryl Sandberg has said in herbook I always get junior women
coming up to me after a talk andthey'll just do this cold ask
(24:59):
hey, will you be my mentor?
And she says that's such a moodkiller, right, it just comes
out of the blue.
I don't know you, you're askingfor a relationship.
That feels like a heavy lift.
So how about something moreconcrete and specific like hey,
could I get on your calendar for30 minutes just to ask you
about this experience you've had, or something I'm curious about
(25:21):
in my career?
Most people will say yes tothat if they have any bandwidth,
and one fun conversation oftenleads to another, and that's
really how I think a lot oforganic mentorships begin.
So I always am a big fan ofmaking the very specific ask,
kind of like you suggested,monica.
Speaker 7 (25:42):
I really love that advice and also it could happen
in the reverse and so, like I'vehad, people before have like a
similar like asked to bementored and to me that feels
like okay, we're meeting monthly, we're meeting weekly, like
well, I don't think I have thetime commitment for this, but
maybe a better transition wouldbe to say I'd love to you know,
(26:03):
I'm not sure that I can committo a long-term mentorship, but
tell me what you have going on.
If it's something that's in mywheelhouse, maybe we can grab
coffee and talk about it for 30minutes, which might be more
manageable and really whatthey're looking for anyway.
Speaker 3 (26:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 7 (26:14):
This has been so good .
Brad, I'm so glad, and Jessicaand the whole of us team.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
So we've got some great questions in the chat, but
before I jump to those, DrJohnson, a minute ago you
mentioned intersectionality andI think that was a really
interesting point and I wantedto dig into that a little
further.
So we know it plays asignificant role in mentoring.
How does that intersectionalityaffect the context of allyship
(26:47):
and mentorship?
Speaker 3 (26:48):
Yeah, yeah, great question.
I think it affects it in lotsof ways.
You know I've mentioned theheadwinds and the inequity women
broadly encounter around accessto developmental relationships.
Well, it gets worse for womenof color, for black women.
There's lots of research fromMcKinsey and other groups
(27:08):
looking at women of colorspecifically and we find that,
compared to white women, theyget far fewer developmental
conversations with key people inleadership in their
organizations.
We know women of color, blackwomen especially, face double
jeopardy, the sense that I'vegot the headwinds of both race
(27:29):
and gender coming my way and Ifeel like, as a consequence, I'm
working twice as hard to gethalf as far, or I feel invisible
.
I just don't even feel thatpeople notice me in a meeting or
wouldn't reach out to me forany kind of developmental
conversation.
I also think that there's anopportunity for leaders and I'm
(27:56):
talking about leaders of anyorganization now to get beyond
these monolithic comments aboutwomen in their companies, right?
Well, hey, on our annual survey, we found that 70% of women
feel a sense of belonging here,so we're doing pretty well.
Are you disaggregating the data?
You can't speak of women thatway.
(28:19):
How are black womenexperiencing the workplace?
Or Latina women?
Or LGBTQ colleagues andoftentimes you're going to see
very different data once youbegin to disaggregate.
So I think here's a moment toactually pay attention to those
intersections and ask questions.
(28:39):
We know that across the board,women of color have very
different experiences and feelless belonging, less inclusion
than their white femalecolleagues.
This is also an opportunity,frankly, for majority women
white women to show up, I think,with allyship for those women
of color who are moremarginalized.
(28:59):
The other thing is that youknow Dave Smith and I write
about allyship for women.
We talk about all of theseallyship skills interpersonally,
publicly, systemically forwomen.
But when you really look atthose skills, those micro
behaviors that we call allyship,they map very nicely to other
(29:22):
marginalized groups, to othermarginalized groups.
They map to people ofmarginalized races and sexual
identities, and I think that'simportant to recognize.
If you can get good being anally to half the population
(29:42):
women, you can probably mapthese to other groups as well.
So those are just a fewthoughts.
Speaker 2 (29:49):
You really spoke to me when you mentioned
disaggregating data.
That's something in my work I'mvery, very heavily in.
For example, the USDAclassifies, lumps Native folks
together in Alaska, native andNative American, and that's
those are vastly differentpeople across tribes, across
(30:11):
land and so but we aren't askingthe questions to even be able
to disaggregate that data yet.
So that's a I feel like that'sa relatively easy step that we
can each take to say are weasking the questions to even be
able to disaggregate the data?
So thank you for that.
So I want to hop to a couple ofthe questions in the chat.
(30:32):
Erica mentioned that on ourLinkedIn poll, people said that
more than mentoring women, womenwant men to help advocate for
better policies.
What are your thoughts on thatpoll and your thoughts on how we
can engage men in a way that iseffective?
Speaker 3 (30:51):
Yeah, what a great, great question.
Well, a few things.
And, by the way, back to myfriend Sheryl Sandberg.
She often says something verysimilar that you know, women get
enough of the nice mentoringmeaning just people showing up
and being nice to them andsupportive that way.
(31:12):
But what they're not gettingoften is the loud sponsorship
you know, and one of our bigmessages is hey, if you're
mentoring a woman and you're not, her loud, vocal advocate, what
a huge missed opportunity toget more talented women advanced
into leadership.
So I think a difficult questionwe pose to a lot of men is are
(31:36):
you talking about her when she'snot even in the room?
Are you her raving fan?
Men can feel uncomfortableabout that for different reasons
.
Some of it goes back to theanxiety we talked about.
If I'm raving about her whenshe's not even in the room, will
people get the wrong idea orwill there be rumors, et cetera
again.
But men have got to get overthat.
(31:58):
If men make this part of theirbrand, this is just part of your
brand.
It's who you are.
You loudly sponsor both men andwomen and everybody knows that.
There's no story there, there'sno gossip.
People just know that's who youare.
You're kind of equalopportunity in access to you as
a sponsor or mentor.
(32:20):
There was a guy at Goldman Sachs, a senior executive, who
recognized at some point, doinga self-audit, that he was
mentoring almost all men atGoldman Sachs.
And when he did some soulsearching he realized I do all
my mentoring over drinks anddinner after work and for a lot
of reasons women probably don'tfeel comfortable with that or
(32:42):
that's not a convenient time fora lot of women.
So he changed his behavior andhad his assistant starting to
book mentoring.
He called it his breakfast,lunch only policy, breakfast or
lunch meetings only, and he saidwithin five years it was about
50-50 mentoring, sponsoring bothmen and women, and he would do
(33:03):
it at a very transparent glasscafe.
Everyone walked by and saw himhaving meetings with men and
women.
There's just no story there.
When you do that, everyoneexpects that.
And then I think the other partof your great question is
getting to systems, and I'm 100%.
Dave and I are working on ourthird book on allyship right now
(33:23):
and it's all on systemicallyship, and I think this is
something we have not addressed.
How do we change workplacepolicies and procedures and
systems so that we get to betterequity and this.
We could talk all day aboutthis, but gosh, it includes
everything from how do wenormalize caregiving?
How do we think about parentalleave?
(33:45):
Do we have adequate paidparental leave?
Do we encourage men to take itversus just women, which, of
course, is stigmatizing forwomen alone?
How do we audit for pay equity?
Do people at different levelsget, or at the same level get,
paid differently?
And who's monitoring that?
And if it's embedded in thesystem, which it probably is you
(34:09):
know the way we did negotiatefor salaries, the way we hire,
the way we have gender biasbuilt into those interviews, the
way we have bias built into ourpromotion strategies it's
everywhere.
And if we're not willing todive in and take a hard look at
(34:29):
those things, including all ofthat desegregated data about who
feels really included in thecompany, then I think we're just
going to see the bias andinequity perpetuate itself over
and over.
Perpetuate itself over and over.
Speaker 2 (34:44):
Really great point Switching gears a little bit.
Kendra asked in the chat if youcan speak more to what you've
learned about why men are oftenprimarily measured on hard
skills and performance metricsand why women in similar roles
are often measured on primarilypersonality and softer skills.
Speaker 3 (35:08):
There's so much here and it's such a great question.
My colleague, dave, has done aton of research on subjective
evaluations, performanceevaluations, and it's almost
shocking how the language variesfor men and women.
So these are men and womendoing the same jobs and if we're
(35:28):
talking about the lower levelsof employees, so people doing
technical work in organizationsoften you don't see a big
difference in the languagethat's used to evaluate
performance.
But the minute you startgetting into leadership levels,
you start seeing the bias.
Women and men who are directorsor vice presidents get very
(35:53):
different language on theirleadership.
So women are called things muchmore likely.
It's going to be something likecompassionate.
That's often the number onething women get called Men get
technically proficient oranalytical.
They get different language andyou may not think that that
amounts to much, but it does so.
(36:14):
There's a big study out ofStanford recently looking at
that subjective language and thewords that get applied to men
are often the words that lead topromotion and pay increases
versus the language that getsapplied to women.
So you know it's funny.
You mentioned the hard skillsand soft skills.
I hate to differentiate it thatway.
(36:36):
I think that for me this allfalls under the umbrella of
emotional intelligence.
And here's the irony there'sresearch recently looking at men
who are getting promoted to theC-suite and the change that's
happened in the last 10 years isremarkable.
The men who are gettingpromoted today in a lot of
(36:59):
companies have attitudes andbehaviors related to humility,
authenticity, empathy.
These are how these inclusivemen are leading, and it's
leading to them getting promoted.
Ironically, women have beendoing this much more than men
for forever.
Those are some of the traitsthat are associated with women.
(37:23):
If you just disaggregateleadership data, women tend to
show up with more inclusion,more democracy in their
decision-making all of thethings that most of us value in
a leader.
Men are slowly catching up andthey're getting rewarded for it,
but we're not rewarding womenin the same way.
Speaker 2 (37:44):
That's interesting.
I did make a note that Stanfordstudy sounds fascinating.
Do you know?
You said it's from the pastseveral years.
Speaker 3 (37:54):
It's actually recent, I would say in the last year or
so.
So I can get the reference fromDave.
He often mentions that study,so it's from.
There's a big lab at Stanfordthat looks I think it's in
sociology that looks at genderequity in the workplace
Wonderful.
Yeah, there it is, I think,kendra found it Boom.
Speaker 2 (38:13):
Thank you, kendra.
Just some light reading forlater.
So what differences, if any,are you finding across
generations?
Speaker 3 (38:24):
Yes, you know that's a really interesting question.
I think part of the bias that Ihave just to own that is that
it's easy for me to look at aroom full of men who look like
me and assume that that's goingto be the problem group group.
(38:51):
That's going to be the groupthat has more of the zero-sum
thinking, more of theunwillingness to change, more of
the lack of awareness, lack ofgender intelligence.
And I think to some extent wedo see that those can be some of
the tougher customers men whohave been in the company forever
and may resist efforts toimprove equity, but I think
we're seeing just as muchdifficulty at times among junior
(39:14):
men.
So there is a book calledBrotopia.
I don't know if any of you haveseen it.
It is written by, I think it'sa woman, I think it's Chang is
her last name.
Brotopia.
It is all about the tech broculture in Silicon Valley and I
(39:34):
have to tell you it is one ofthe most cringeworthy reads you
will ever encounter, looking atwhat women experience around
overt misogyny, sexistharassment, daily in the tech
industry, because it's very mucha bro culture.
These are all young men, theseare men coming right into tech
(39:58):
companies, programmers, and so Idon't think we can always
assume it's just age.
I think some of it has to dowith the culture these men are
functioning in.
So if those men show up in thattech company and older male
engineers are socializing theminto this very sexist culture,
(40:20):
we're going to just see itperpetuated.
So again, we've got to get tocultural solutions here.
But here's one positive, I thinkyounger men millennial men and
younger are showing up expectinga workplace and a life
personally that is moreequitable around caregiving.
(40:41):
They want to be more engagedfathers.
You can see this in all thesurveys.
They want to be more equitablepartners, especially
heterosexual men.
You'll see that because moreand more we just have dual
career couples and men areunderstanding there's a lot in
this for me.
If I get to be more engagedwith my kids and my partner gets
(41:03):
to be more engaged at work andhave more possibility for
promotion, this is good for us.
So those men, I think, want tosee a different workplace.
But then again they show upinto these calcified companies
and there's not bandwidth forthem to be different.
There's not permission for themto take parental leave, there's
(41:26):
not permission for them toshare, and so again, it's an
opportunity to really take ahard look at how we do work.
Speaker 2 (41:34):
I think On a similar subject, a question that's kind
of been rattling around in mymind and I don't have the words
for it, so bear with me for aminute.
But I'm thinking about thisgreater shift to hybrid and
remote work that the pandemicbrought and how it.
I think in some ways it couldbe an equalizer and in other
(41:56):
ways it could increasedisparities, and so I think part
of my question is have you seenany research around how that
interacts with our conversationtopic today?
And if you haven't, do you haveany kind of initial thoughts or
observations that you've had onyour own?
Speaker 3 (42:17):
There is a lot actually written on this and I
think it's a really importanttopic.
I mean, I think what we learnedduring the pandemic very
clearly is that flex, remotework works and people are
happier with a lot of thosearrangements.
You know, ironically flex workhas been available for a long
(42:39):
time, even before the pandemic,but it was mostly available for
men.
Ironically, women had lessaccess to that.
During the pandemic that wassort of equaled out and I think
both men and women benefitedfrom more equitable sharing at
home.
Although the research shows mendidn't share as much at home as
they think they did, at leastthey were home more and got a
(43:03):
front row seat to whatcaregiving actually looks like
day to day.
I think there are two bigproblems that we need to address
.
Number one women we findpost-pandemic are taking
advantage of more of the flex orremote work opportunities and
are expecting that.
If we don't address how bias isgoing to creep in there, so
(43:27):
people who aren't getting theFaceTime are less likely to get
promoted.
How do we mitigate that?
How do we make sure those womenwho are remote and aren't
around the office are gettingsponsored or getting mentored or
getting noticed, having theirperformance valued.
If we don't have a way toaddress that, those women are
going to slip through the cracksand they're simply not going to
(43:50):
advance, and I think companiesare really struggling with that.
The second thing I will say andmaybe others have other ideas
here to really make flex, remotework work, men have got to take
it.
It can't just be a women'sprogram and I'm afraid that too
often that's what's happening.
It can't just be a women'sprogram and I'm afraid that too
often that's what's happening.
Still, men either feel likethey're going to be punished or
(44:15):
they're going to suffer.
If they want to be flex workersor want to be caregivers or
want to share, somehow do moreremote work, for whatever reason
, men don't do it.
They don't take advantage ofthose programs as much as women
do.
So I think until we get menusing that as much as women and
(44:36):
really sharing in an egalitarianway, then it's going to still
be stigmatized as primarily awomen's thing.
Speaker 2 (44:45):
Shifting a little bit .
So we are seeing so much realtime polarization and
politicization of DEIAB efforts.
How do you see this affectinginclusion efforts in the
workplace right now and how doyou see it evolving, and what
role do you believe men willplay in driving change?
Speaker 3 (45:07):
Yeah, what a great question.
I am seeing it.
I think anyone who you knowtunes into the news for 10
minutes is going to see this Allthe kind of pushback on you
know gosh for lack of a betterword woke programs in companies
and in universities.
I hate that term woke.
(45:30):
I think it's often used bypeople who don't understand what
diversity, equity, belongingactually is about and feel
anxious or have the zero-sumthinking.
I think this is a moment,frankly, for leadership, courage
.
I think that there is pushback.
We can't deny that.
My question is who is going tostay the course?
(45:52):
Who is going to say veryclearly let's look at the
research, let's make thisevidence-based.
The evidence is clear when weget more genuine inclusion and
representation at all levels ofleadership whether we're talking
about gender, race or any othergroup of leadership, whether
we're talking about gender raceor any other group we do better.
Companies perform moreeffectively, they're better
(46:13):
places to work, Retention ishigher, the company bottom line
is improved.
This is an evidence-based issue.
It's not political.
This is all about performanceand so many of the folks who
push back on this are people whoare big into capitalism and
business and I think they'revery incongruent on this because
(46:35):
they're ignoring the data thatthis is actually good for all of
us.
I think you know I have empathyfor this.
Dave and I were at a bigmedical school recently doing
some work and they've recentlybeen sued because they have this
world-class women's leadershipprogram.
(46:55):
It's actually won awards, it'sbeen written up in academic
journals, it has led to a hugeincrease in advancing women in
the medical schools, which is ahuge problem.
We have real lack ofrepresentation and leadership in
academic medicine and they'vebeen sued on the basis of Title
IX right.
So it's not fair for you tohave a program for women that
(47:19):
men don't have access to.
I find that a bit enraging, ofcourse, because again it ignores
the data that you have a veryuneven playing field here and
we're not giving specialprivilege.
We're actually trying to get tobalance, we're trying to get to
equity, but I see organizationslike that folding the minute a
(47:42):
lawsuit shows up and I thinklawyers drive too much of that
and I worry that unless peopleshow up with some real courage
and are willing to fight back,we may take a few steps back.
Speaker 2 (47:58):
Yeah, we're seeing situations like that here in
Oklahoma as well.
Just the other day, I believeit was, ou announced that they
were closing a women'sleadership program because they
felt it violated new rulesagainst DEIB training and we've
had a number of femalelegislators go through that
(48:20):
program and we have a drasticunderrepresentation of women in
the legislature and that'sdisappointing to see a program
like that feel like they need toclose.
That's disappointing to see aprogram like that feel like they
need to close.
So I want to put out a call tothose on the call.
If you have any last minutequestions, this is a good time
to be thinking about thosedropping them in.
(48:41):
I do have one kind of wrap upquestion for you, dr Johnson,
and that is what are three maintakeaways for VEST members and
anyone listening to this podcastepisode that you'd like to
share?
Speaker 3 (48:55):
Sure, yeah, boy, I have to narrow it down to three.
Okay, all right.
Well, here are three that Ithink are kind of top of mind
for me.
Number one there was a greatstudy by a group called
Integrating Women Leaders lastyear, and actually they've been
(49:16):
doing an annual survey relatedto male allyship and one of the
questions that they ask men ishey, if you haven't engaged in
allyship programming, genderequity programming, if you just
haven't been part of that, whyhaven't you?
The number one thing menconsistently say to that is I
(49:38):
wasn't invited.
And it may seem silly that wehave to invite men to things
related to equity, but mytakeaway is invite men, be
deliberate about it.
If you're running a women'sbusiness group or ERG in your
company and you want to get moreallies at the table, give them
(50:01):
a personal invite next timeyou're having an event and say
hey, I'd love to have you cometo this.
I see you as somebody who'sreally showing up this way, and
this is really for you too.
When men get an invitepersonally, they often are much
more likely to show up andengage, and I think that's half.
The battle sometimes is gettingmen in the room.
(50:22):
And one corollary to that is,if you're trying to do
programming for men and makethem better allies is if you're
trying to do programming for menand make them better allies,
don't call it gender blank,because men again see that and
think, oh, that's not for me.
Call it something likeinclusive leadership and you
know what.
A lot of men see that and gookay, that makes sense, it's
(50:43):
part of my leadership brand.
Sometimes it's just thebranding of things like this,
the branding of things like this.
A second thing, maybe number two, is we don't do a good job
showing men what's in it forthem.
Too often, when we haveprograms around equity and
belonging and gender, men think,oh, this is just for women, and
(51:07):
why do I want to expend allthis energy being a better ally
for women?
This is not just for women.
There's lots of researchshowing that when men are more
inclusive leaders and betterallies, have more relationships,
richer networks with women intheir organizations, they do
better, they're more likely toget promoted, they're more
(51:27):
likely to be seen as inclusiveleaders, they develop better EQ,
they develop bettercommunication skills, and these
are not just things I get toemploy and enjoy in the
workplace.
I get to take these home to bea better partner, better parent.
This is just good for men whenthey show up in these spaces.
So we have to do a better job,I think, helping men understand
(51:51):
why gender equity is good forthem, not just women.
And then, finally, let's talkabout caregiving, maybe as my
last bullet here, I want torecommend to everybody on the
call today if you haven't readit, make sure you get your hands
on Eve Rodsky's book Fair Play.
Sure you get your hands on EveRodsky's book Fair Play.
I don't know if anybody hasread Fair Play.
(52:12):
I'm a big fan of Eve's.
Eve has written a terrific bookon how partners can share
caregiving, domestic work,homeschooling, whatever it is.
We know that in the year 2024,it is.
(52:34):
We know that in the year 2024,heterosexual, dual career
couples chances are really good.
She's doing double the amountof caregiving and housework than
he's doing, and one thing oughtto be crystal clear to us we
are never going to level theplaying field when it comes to
pay and advancement unless menstart showing up at home.
And this is not just doing thedishes and spending time with
(52:55):
your own children.
This is also all the hiddencognitive, emotional labor, all
of that stuff like keeping listsand planning events and knowing
your children's clothing sizes.
If you, as a man, are notshowing up in this space and
doing better here, we have along way to go, so caregiving.
So if any of you on the callare partnered with men, maybe
(53:20):
get fair play and read ittogether.
What a fun couple activity.
Speaker 1 (53:26):
If you enjoyed this episode, share it with a friend
and don't forget to leave us areview.
And if you're ready to takeyour career to the next level,
apply to join our community ofprofessional women, all eager to
help you get there and staythere.
Go to wwwbestherco and applytoday.
Hey everyone, this is Erica Lucas, your host and
founding member of Vest, anorganization connecting women
across industries, regions andcareer levels so that together
we can expedite the pipeline ofmore women in positions of power
and influence.
Welcome to another episode ofthe Vestor Podcast, where we
(00:23):
explore the invisible barriersholding women back in the
workplace and share stories ofwomen building power
collectively.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Thinking more on some of the common pitfalls or
mistakes that men may make whenthey're attempting to mentor or
advocate for women.
What are those and how can theyavoid them?
Speaker 3 (00:48):
Number one men failing to listen and also
avoiding assumptions about women.
You know, what do women want?
Well, women are not a monolith.
So I need to do the generouslistening and actually ask you
know, what would it look like ifI was showing up in a way that
is helpful?
I think men also get it wrongby expecting women to educate
(01:11):
them about gender in theworkplace versus going out and
doing their own self-education.
There's so much written,there's so many podcasts,
there's so many great articlesabout gender bias and gender
difference in the workplace.
If men would do a bit ofself-educating before they show
up in spaces like this, I thinkthat would be incredibly helpful
(01:35):
.
I think sometimes we see menshowing up with an attitude
about what allyship is.
That gets it wrong from thestart.
Men get together in kind of asiloed way and think to
themselves what are we going todo for women versus this
attitude of partnership andcollaboration?
How are we going to go theretogether?
And then one other one, jessica, that comes up a lot is men's
(01:59):
self-labeling as allies.
It drives me crazy.
Dave and I do a lot of trainingfor men on better allyship and
inclusive leadership, and menwill sometimes say, hey, when do
I get my certificate on, youknow, being an ally and we're
always saying, I'm sorry,there's not a destination here.
We're always trying to getbetter and there's not a finish
(02:23):
line better and there's not afinish line.
Speaker 4 (02:29):
In this episode, best Members talk to
gender-inclusive culture expertBrad Johnson, professor of
psychology at the United StatesNaval Academy and faculty
associate at Johns HopkinsUniversity, about the skills and
benefits men earn when theyengage in advocating for women
at work.
Brad also talks about themisconceptions and challenges
that often get in the way of menengaging in gender equity
advocacy.
We also talk about theeconomics of inclusive
(02:51):
workspaces, intersectionalityand more.
Special thanks to BEST memberJessica Dietrich, director of
Government Relations and Policyfor Hunger-Free Oklahoma, for
moderating this session.
Hunger Free Oklahoma formoderating this session.
For Brad and Jessica's full bioand show notes, go to
wwwbestherco.
Forward slash podcast.
This episode is brought to youby VEST, a coaching platform,
(03:18):
peer network and investment fundfor women.
To learn more about how VESTsupports and invests in women
professionals and solutionsenabling women's labor
participation and economicmobility, go to wwwbestherco.
This conversation was part of amore private coaching session
with best members and has beenrepurposed to accommodate this
episode.
If you enjoyed the episode,share it with a friend and don't
forget to leave us a review.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
I want to start off with somewhat of a broad
question.
What inspired you to focus onthis topic of men mentoring and
advocating for women in theworkplace?
Speaker 3 (03:53):
Yes, this may not surprise you, we get that
question a lot, my co-author,dave Smith, and I.
So let me just kind of give youmy Um.
So let me just kind of give youmy and I think of this as my
why.
You know, and part of ouradvice to men often who need to
be better in this space and needto be showing up as inclusive
(04:13):
leaders, is you better getcomfortable with your why,
because people are going to wantto know why you're doing this.
And so for me, uh, it's acombination of several things.
It's 30 years of researching,mentoring, sponsoring
relationships in the workplaceand noticing the data that
(04:33):
consistently shows that womensimply don't get access to those
developmental relationships theway that men do.
Men do, and even when they arementored, they often don't get
the same quality of mentoringand they often don't get
(04:53):
sponsored as part of thatrelationship and men do.
So I've noticed thosedisparities.
I've been curious about whythat is so.
The academic piece, I think,factors in there's a personal
element for me.
I've got one sister, onesibling.
We both, shannon and I bothbecame naval officers right
(05:15):
after we got our PhDs inclinical psych.
I don't know if she followed inmy footsteps or we were both
just kind of oriented topsychology.
But I stayed active duty forfour years as an officer.
My sister has stayed her entirecareer.
She's now at 30 years.
She's a very senior Navycaptain.
She's had combat deployments toIraq and Afghanistan.
(05:36):
She's been on aircraft carriers.
She is a warrior.
And over those 30 years I havehad almost weekly conversations
with my sister about headwindsthat she encounters, that I
never have, right, just genderdifferences.
We had the same job.
Shannon is told, you know,probably at least once a month.
(05:58):
Hey, you know, you should smilemore.
No one's ever said that to me.
Or, you know, when you givefeedback to men you're
emasculating, right, you're alittle too aggressive.
Nobody's ever said that to me.
She was even shamed once forrunning so fast on a physical
fitness test.
She beat all the guys and wastold hey, maybe you should tone
(06:19):
that down a little bit becausethe guys feel bad, down a little
bit, because the guys feel bad.
It's just mind-boggling to mewhat my sister based on nothing
more than gender encounters.
So I think that's part of it.
And then, you know, I've spentmy career at the Naval Academy
(06:41):
and I really think that if moremen were exposed to the women at
the Naval Academy who are aboutto go out and lead Marines and
sailors in combat, they wouldhave an easier time getting over
some of their gender bias.
They would very quickly beexposed to these women who are
ready to lead from day one and Ithink in terms of mitigating
(07:03):
some bias about women inleadership and women in
competence I've had someprivilege just being around
these young women so I think youput all of those things
together that kind of, I thinkis a bit about why I started
down this road.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
I love and Monica put this in the chat too that you
had those conversations withyour sister.
I know a lot of us havesiblings and I know I personally
haven't had that conversationwith my brother, so it's a
fascinating lens to kind ofbring to this through that
family dynamic.
So have you encountered anyresistance from men or women in
(07:44):
this process?
Speaker 3 (07:45):
Yes, both, and it's interesting and there are
different reasons for theresistance and I think you know
they both make sense indifferent ways.
But let me start with women.
You know organizations likethis, you know let's just talk
about Vestur, or women'sconferences, or women's ERGs, in
(08:07):
most companies, women'snetworks.
These have traditionally beensafe spaces, you know, for women
to be together to talk aboutwhat they're experiencing, to
talk about bias and headwinds,and you know that daily death by
a thousand cuts all themicroaggressions and exclusions
they encounter, and I thinkthey've served a really
(08:29):
important purpose.
These have been places forwomen to gather and you know.
So when you start saying, hey,we should invite men into these
conversations or into thesespaces, understandably I think a
lot of women, or some at atleast, will say what we don't
need men here, we don't want menhere, this is kind of our space
(08:50):
.
Want to have great empathy forthat.
I think it makes terrific sense.
I think the problem, of course,if men are not part of the
conversation, it's going to bean echo chamber and this is why
the World Bank estimates we haveI think the most recent
estimate is 135 years toactually get to equity and
(09:10):
things like pay because theprogress is glacial.
Men tend to look at this andsee this as a women's issue.
They think it's a gender thing,so it doesn't involve me and
they just don't engage.
So we need to bring men in.
But I think the way men show upis important and we can
certainly talk more about that.
(09:32):
I think women, too, aresometimes concerned about.
You know, I mentioned my why.
What's his thing?
Why is he doing this?
Is it performative, right?
Is he doing it to look good infront of the boss?
Is he trying to woo women?
Is he trying to get higherperformance evaluation?
So he's just showing upperformatively in these spaces
(09:54):
but he's not really acting itout.
He's just throwing on his allycape when he thinks people are
watching.
So I understand that concern aswell.
I think people want to justkind of get a sense of is this
authentic or not?
For men.
We have gotten different kindsof resistance and pushback.
(10:14):
We hear men say things like whyare we talking about gender?
We solved this in the 60s,right?
It's a level playing field now,and I see women down the hall.
So what's the problem?
We have women here, and whatwe're, of course, not getting to
is do we really have womeninvolved in leadership?
What are those womenexperiencing in the workplace?
(10:38):
Those men we have some work todo in just helping them
understand what women experiencein ways that perhaps men don't.
Men also can suffer zero-sumthinking, right?
Hey, if we're promoting women,if we're spending all of these
resources on DE&I, then I, as amajority male, I'm going to lose
(11:00):
in some way, and I thinkobviously that's a fallacy.
We find that when we get toreal gender balance in
leadership, meaningfully, thepie just grows for everybody.
Right, we have more opportunity, more advancement, and I think
we have work to do helping thosemen with zero-sum thinking.
And then, finally, you know,dave and I hold men's feet to
(11:21):
the fire, often about makingyourself accountable, to hold
other men accountable in theworkplace.
So when you hear biasedcomments or sexist jokes, you
have an obligation to saysomething and disrupt, and I
know men sometimes feel anxietyabout this.
You know I don't want to sufferthe wimp penalty.
(11:42):
I don't want to lose my mancard.
This makes me anxious, so Ijust stay on the sidelines.
I don't want to suffer the wimppenalty.
I don't want to lose my mancard.
This makes me anxious, so Ijust stay on the sidelines.
I don't engage, so those arejust a few of the things that I
think we encounter.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
You mentioned some of the challenges that men may
face in advocating for women,and you've already named a few,
but thinking more on some of thecommon pitfalls or mistakes
that men may make when they'reattempting to mentor, advocate
for women, what are those andhow can they avoid them?
Speaker 3 (12:15):
There are so many.
How long is this show today?
There are a lot and I'mguessing I'm going to name a few
, but I'm guessing that women onthe call today could come up
with a bunch of others too.
I'll just go through some thatkind of I think occur over and
over again.
Number one men failing tolisten, men just showing up and
(12:39):
talking.
Men maybe showing up at anevent, you know, like a women's
conference or a women's ERGevent, and then trying to take
over and speak for women, or itlands the wrong way every time.
So simply not showing up, withgenerous listening and also
avoiding assumptions about women.
(13:01):
What do women want?
Well, women are not a monolith.
So I need to do the generouslistening and actually ask you
know, what would it look like ifI was showing up in a way that
is helpful?
I think men also get it wrongby expecting women to educate
them about gender in theworkplace versus going out and
(13:24):
doing their own self-education.
There's so much written,there's so many podcasts,
there's so many great articlesabout gender bias and gender
difference in the workplace.
If men would do a bit ofself-educating before they show
up in spaces like this, I thinkthat would be incredibly helpful
in spaces like this.
(13:46):
I think that would beincredibly helpful.
I think sometimes we see menshowing up with an attitude
about what allyship is.
That gets it wrong from thestart.
So men get together in kind ofa siloed way and think to
themselves what are we going todo for women versus this
attitude of partnership andcollaboration?
How are we going to go theretogether?
We have to solve this genderinequity, but we have to do it
(14:09):
together.
So no white knighting, norescuing, no doing things for
women.
This has got to be aboutcollaboration.
And so, boy, I need to show upwith some real curiosity.
What role can I play incollaborating so we can get
there faster?
But I won't assume what thatlooks like.
And then one other one, jessica, that comes up a lot is men's
(14:32):
self-labeling as allies.
It drives me crazy.
Dave and I do a lot of trainingfor men on better allyship and
inclusive leadership, and menwill sometimes say, hey, when do
I get my certificate on beingan ally?
And we're always saying, I'msorry, there's not a destination
here.
We're always trying to getbetter and there's not a finish
(14:56):
line.
So let's not call ourselvesallies.
Let's let minoritized folksdecide if you're an ally to them
.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
I really, I really love that you said there's,
there's, not a destination.
I think in such a goal orientedsociety we can be very set on
what is the end point, what isthe end goal, and I can be
helpful in some things.
But, as you mentioned, this isa, this is a process and maybe
(15:25):
more of a spectrum than tryingto get to an individual
destination, and the principlesare very similar to working in
the racial equity space and thesocioeconomic space.
Nothing about us without us isa common organizing term, and
this is right up that alley.
Us is a common organizing term,and this is right up that alley
(15:48):
.
So lots of great points andit's a good reminder for us.
Those same principles that weknow in other spaces can apply
here.
So how can men navigatepotential challenges or
perceptions, such as the fear ofbeing misunderstood or facing
backlash when activelysupporting women's advancement,
or facing backlash when activelysupporting women's advancement?
Speaker 3 (16:12):
Yeah, great question.
And I just want to revisitsomething I've mentioned before,
dave and I see too many menshow up when invited to women's
spaces or gendered conversationsor maybe it's your company's
International Women's Daycelebration or something like
that.
I see either men not showing upat all, so they miss out
(16:33):
entirely on the opportunity toget better in this space, or the
way they show up landsincorrectly.
So you know, I see men show upand talk too much.
I see men essentiallymansplaining to women how they
should do, how they should getto gender equity or how they can
pretzel themselves to kind offit into a male-centric
(16:55):
workplace, and I wish that moremen could learn to just show up
and realize you don't have totalk, just show up and learn.
Just show up and listen,improve your gender intelligence
, your GQ and, while you're atit, improve your cultural
intelligence.
Let's not forget about theintersections.
So listen and learn.
(17:15):
At some point, as you have begunto collaborate with the Women's
Network or Women's Conference,now ask those curious, humble
questions what role can I play?
How can I really do some workto help this organization move
forward?
I'm not sure what that lookslike, but I'm really open to
(17:37):
learning about that.
I think that's the way you dothat.
A second thing I'll mention iswhat Dave and I refer to as
reluctant male syndrome, meaningwhy don't men engage in close
friendships, in mentoring, inany other developmental
connection with women in theworkplace?
(17:58):
And we've found so many reasons.
If you ask men in private whatthis is about, why they stay on
the sidelines, why they'reafraid to engage, you hear so
many things Anxiety, right, Idon't want to say or do the
wrong thing, so it's not worthit for me.
Maybe I'm afraid of gossip.
I start mentoring a juniorwoman.
(18:19):
Will people begin talking?
That sounds scary.
I don't want to risk that.
There's implicit bias, right.
There's this interestingresearch in psychology called
the women are wonderful effect.
So ask men, what do you thinkof women?
And you get positive language.
Well, women are great.
I love women.
(18:39):
They're kind, they're gentle,they're caring.
But in all of the language thatyou get, you're not hearing
language about competence andabout leadership and about
readiness to step up into thenext thing, whatever it is.
So if that is going on for meand I'm not even aware of it,
maybe I'm not offering mentoringand sponsoring, and then we
(19:03):
can't ignore Me Too.
Right, me Too comes along andwe're looking at research from
Bloomberg, for example Post MeToo.
Showing about 60% of men inAmerica are saying Post Me Too.
Sorry, I'm not mentoring women,it's too dangerous, too scary,
too risky.
A lot of false narratives aboutMe Too.
(19:23):
You know, me Too is prettystraightforward Women would love
to come to work and not beassaulted or harassed.
Super low bar for men to getover.
But instead of that you mayhear the false narratives that
it's just, it's too dangerous.
So solution for that, I meanreally there's only one.
I'm a psychologist and I justam always recommending to men to
(19:47):
self-treat for that anxietyusing exposure therapy Boy, more
mentoring, more coffee, morelunches, more conversations.
That's the only way youovercome that.
But don't make your anxiety herproblem.
You'd need to just engage a bitmore.
So those are just some of thethings.
(20:08):
I'm sure others on the callwould have other thoughts about
that.
Speaker 5 (20:13):
This is a little bit of a different angle on that and
maybe you'll cover this later,but I wonder what can women do
to put men at ease and make themfeel more comfortable?
Sometimes I feel like we needto take a leadership role so
that, you know, we can allaysome of those, those fears and
(20:35):
concerns.
Speaker 3 (20:36):
Yeah, yeah, I.
I think that's a brilliantquestion, joanne.
I my only reluctance is I don'twant to give women one more
thing they have to do to get tomore equity and fairness and
parity in the workplace.
You know you have enough officehousework on your plate, you
know, compared to men you know Idon't know, others may have
(21:28):
great ideas about this I oftentell men, you know, look, if
you've got a lot of anxiety, forexample, about a closed door
meeting with women and I hearthis from a lot of men I'm sorry
I won.
But number two please don't haveclosed door meetings with men.
It's not fair.
If you've got some policy likethat, at least make it equal so
that everybody has the same kindof access to you, because
otherwise you're sendingmessages to everyone in the
workplace that women are somehowrisky or dangerous or, who
knows, maybe you don't trustyourself alone in a meeting.
(21:49):
One other thought I have aboutthat, joanne, is just to suggest
, you know, group mentoring.
How about if it's a senior maleexecutive?
Would he be comfortable hosting, you know, a conversation or
coffee with three women who areinterested in moving up?
Maybe that will help.
I'm open to anything.
(22:11):
I just don't want to make ither problem that he has anxiety
about that.
Speaker 2 (22:19):
Thanks for the question, Joanne.
Thank you.
Speaker 6 (22:22):
This is Monica and I'm watching Hannah add about
something that I was sort ofthinking about, which is you
know how, as a woman, one couldbe as sort of specific as
possible about what is helpfulor what is desired.
But I'm also sort of not quitesure about that because number
one probably, women have beendoing that for a long time and
(22:45):
does it get taken seriously oracknowledged?
You know, just saying it againdoesn't necessarily make it
different.
And also, the other thing is,you know, if so much of the
different treatment is just sortof in the culture, women may
not know, like what they'remissing, what we're missing out
on.
So how to even say I will.
(23:07):
You know, I am really lookingfor a mentorship that does X, y
and Z.
Well, you know, we may not havethe kind of exposure to know
what the most effective thingsare, and men may or may not
realize if they're doingsomething you know what they're
doing because it could bepotentially so natural in that
kind of environment.
So I definitely hear it's notexactly another job for us to
(23:31):
take on, to solve, but in a wayit sort of is.
But we might not even know whatwe don't know.
Speaker 3 (23:36):
Yeah, you know it's interesting.
You say that, monica, cheryl.
In terms of initiating amentorship, you know, I think
both ways we could kind of talkabout that.
I often hear from men.
I do see these talented juniorwomen around me at work and I
know I should offer a mentoringconversation.
(23:56):
I'm just not sure what thatsounds like and I don't want to
get it wrong.
I don't want it to land thewrong way.
So I avoid and we're constantly, I think, just having to coach
men on how this is not a heavylift.
But don't say something to herlike I'd like to mentor you,
right?
That sounds creepy and shedoesn't know what it means.
(24:18):
But how about?
Hey, I saw you do blank lastweek and I thought that was
terrific.
I was thinking to myself wow,the hiring committee sure got it
right, bringing you on board.
I hope we can keep you If youever want to drop by and just
chat about next steps and how Ican contribute.
That's not really a challenge.
(24:38):
And then I think that women areoften curious about how do I
initiate, maybe initiating up,how do I initiate that
conversation?
Sheryl Sandberg has said in herbook I always get junior women
coming up to me after a talk andthey'll just do this cold ask
(24:59):
hey, will you be my mentor?
And she says that's such a moodkiller, right, it just comes
out of the blue.
I don't know you, you're askingfor a relationship.
That feels like a heavy lift.
So how about something moreconcrete and specific like hey,
could I get on your calendar for30 minutes just to ask you
about this experience you've had, or something I'm curious about
(25:21):
in my career?
Most people will say yes tothat if they have any bandwidth,
and one fun conversation oftenleads to another, and that's
really how I think a lot oforganic mentorships begin.
So I always am a big fan ofmaking the very specific ask,
kind of like you suggested,monica.
Speaker 7 (25:42):
I really love that advice and also it could happen
in the reverse and so, like I'vehad, people before have like a
similar like asked to bementored and to me that feels
like okay, we're meeting monthly, we're meeting weekly, like
well, I don't think I have thetime commitment for this, but
maybe a better transition wouldbe to say I'd love to you know,
(26:03):
I'm not sure that I can committo a long-term mentorship, but
tell me what you have going on.
If it's something that's in mywheelhouse, maybe we can grab
coffee and talk about it for 30minutes, which might be more
manageable and really whatthey're looking for anyway.
Speaker 3 (26:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 7 (26:14):
This has been so good .
Brad, I'm so glad, and Jessicaand the whole of us team.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
So we've got some great questions in the chat, but
before I jump to those, DrJohnson, a minute ago you
mentioned intersectionality andI think that was a really
interesting point and I wantedto dig into that a little
further.
So we know it plays asignificant role in mentoring.
How does that intersectionalityaffect the context of allyship
(26:47):
and mentorship?
Speaker 3 (26:48):
Yeah, yeah, great question.
I think it affects it in lotsof ways.
You know I've mentioned theheadwinds and the inequity women
broadly encounter around accessto developmental relationships.
Well, it gets worse for womenof color, for black women.
There's lots of research fromMcKinsey and other groups
(27:08):
looking at women of colorspecifically and we find that,
compared to white women, theyget far fewer developmental
conversations with key people inleadership in their
organizations.
We know women of color, blackwomen especially, face double
jeopardy, the sense that I'vegot the headwinds of both race
(27:29):
and gender coming my way and Ifeel like, as a consequence, I'm
working twice as hard to gethalf as far, or I feel invisible
.
I just don't even feel thatpeople notice me in a meeting or
wouldn't reach out to me forany kind of developmental
conversation.
I also think that there's anopportunity for leaders and I'm
(27:56):
talking about leaders of anyorganization now to get beyond
these monolithic comments aboutwomen in their companies, right?
Well, hey, on our annual survey, we found that 70% of women
feel a sense of belonging here,so we're doing pretty well.
Are you disaggregating the data?
You can't speak of women thatway.
(28:19):
How are black womenexperiencing the workplace?
Or Latina women?
Or LGBTQ colleagues andoftentimes you're going to see
very different data once youbegin to disaggregate.
So I think here's a moment toactually pay attention to those
intersections and ask questions.
(28:39):
We know that across the board,women of color have very
different experiences and feelless belonging, less inclusion
than their white femalecolleagues.
This is also an opportunity,frankly, for majority women
white women to show up, I think,with allyship for those women
of color who are moremarginalized.
(28:59):
The other thing is that youknow Dave Smith and I write
about allyship for women.
We talk about all of theseallyship skills interpersonally,
publicly, systemically forwomen.
But when you really look atthose skills, those micro
behaviors that we call allyship,they map very nicely to other
(29:22):
marginalized groups, to othermarginalized groups.
They map to people ofmarginalized races and sexual
identities, and I think that'simportant to recognize.
If you can get good being anally to half the population
(29:42):
women, you can probably mapthese to other groups as well.
So those are just a fewthoughts.
Speaker 2 (29:49):
You really spoke to me when you mentioned
disaggregating data.
That's something in my work I'mvery, very heavily in.
For example, the USDAclassifies, lumps Native folks
together in Alaska, native andNative American, and that's
those are vastly differentpeople across tribes, across
(30:11):
land and so but we aren't askingthe questions to even be able
to disaggregate that data yet.
So that's a I feel like that'sa relatively easy step that we
can each take to say are weasking the questions to even be
able to disaggregate the data?
So thank you for that.
So I want to hop to a couple ofthe questions in the chat.
(30:32):
Erica mentioned that on ourLinkedIn poll, people said that
more than mentoring women, womenwant men to help advocate for
better policies.
What are your thoughts on thatpoll and your thoughts on how we
can engage men in a way that iseffective?
Speaker 3 (30:51):
Yeah, what a great, great question.
Well, a few things.
And, by the way, back to myfriend Sheryl Sandberg.
She often says something verysimilar that you know, women get
enough of the nice mentoringmeaning just people showing up
and being nice to them andsupportive that way.
(31:12):
But what they're not gettingoften is the loud sponsorship
you know, and one of our bigmessages is hey, if you're
mentoring a woman and you're not, her loud, vocal advocate, what
a huge missed opportunity toget more talented women advanced
into leadership.
So I think a difficult questionwe pose to a lot of men is are
(31:36):
you talking about her when she'snot even in the room?
Are you her raving fan?
Men can feel uncomfortableabout that for different reasons
.
Some of it goes back to theanxiety we talked about.
If I'm raving about her whenshe's not even in the room, will
people get the wrong idea orwill there be rumors, et cetera
again.
But men have got to get overthat.
(31:58):
If men make this part of theirbrand, this is just part of your
brand.
It's who you are.
You loudly sponsor both men andwomen and everybody knows that.
There's no story there, there'sno gossip.
People just know that's who youare.
You're kind of equalopportunity in access to you as
a sponsor or mentor.
(32:20):
There was a guy at Goldman Sachs, a senior executive, who
recognized at some point, doinga self-audit, that he was
mentoring almost all men atGoldman Sachs.
And when he did some soulsearching he realized I do all
my mentoring over drinks anddinner after work and for a lot
of reasons women probably don'tfeel comfortable with that or
(32:42):
that's not a convenient time fora lot of women.
So he changed his behavior andhad his assistant starting to
book mentoring.
He called it his breakfast,lunch only policy, breakfast or
lunch meetings only, and he saidwithin five years it was about
50-50 mentoring, sponsoring bothmen and women, and he would do
(33:03):
it at a very transparent glasscafe.
Everyone walked by and saw himhaving meetings with men and
women.
There's just no story there.
When you do that, everyoneexpects that.
And then I think the other partof your great question is
getting to systems, and I'm 100%.
Dave and I are working on ourthird book on allyship right now
(33:23):
and it's all on systemicallyship, and I think this is
something we have not addressed.
How do we change workplacepolicies and procedures and
systems so that we get to betterequity and this.
We could talk all day aboutthis, but gosh, it includes
everything from how do wenormalize caregiving?
How do we think about parentalleave?
(33:45):
Do we have adequate paidparental leave?
Do we encourage men to take itversus just women, which, of
course, is stigmatizing forwomen alone?
How do we audit for pay equity?
Do people at different levelsget, or at the same level get,
paid differently?
And who's monitoring that?
And if it's embedded in thesystem, which it probably is you
(34:09):
know the way we did negotiatefor salaries, the way we hire,
the way we have gender biasbuilt into those interviews, the
way we have bias built into ourpromotion strategies it's
everywhere.
And if we're not willing todive in and take a hard look at
(34:29):
those things, including all ofthat desegregated data about who
feels really included in thecompany, then I think we're just
going to see the bias andinequity perpetuate itself over
and over.
Perpetuate itself over and over.
Speaker 2 (34:44):
Really great point Switching gears a little bit.
Kendra asked in the chat if youcan speak more to what you've
learned about why men are oftenprimarily measured on hard
skills and performance metricsand why women in similar roles
are often measured on primarilypersonality and softer skills.
Speaker 3 (35:08):
There's so much here and it's such a great question.
My colleague, dave, has done aton of research on subjective
evaluations, performanceevaluations, and it's almost
shocking how the language variesfor men and women.
So these are men and womendoing the same jobs and if we're
(35:28):
talking about the lower levelsof employees, so people doing
technical work in organizationsoften you don't see a big
difference in the languagethat's used to evaluate
performance.
But the minute you startgetting into leadership levels,
you start seeing the bias.
Women and men who are directorsor vice presidents get very
(35:53):
different language on theirleadership.
So women are called things muchmore likely.
It's going to be something likecompassionate.
That's often the number onething women get called Men get
technically proficient oranalytical.
They get different language andyou may not think that that
amounts to much, but it does so.
(36:14):
There's a big study out ofStanford recently looking at
that subjective language and thewords that get applied to men
are often the words that lead topromotion and pay increases
versus the language that getsapplied to women.
So you know it's funny.
You mentioned the hard skillsand soft skills.
I hate to differentiate it thatway.
(36:36):
I think that for me this allfalls under the umbrella of
emotional intelligence.
And here's the irony there'sresearch recently looking at men
who are getting promoted to theC-suite and the change that's
happened in the last 10 years isremarkable.
The men who are gettingpromoted today in a lot of
(36:59):
companies have attitudes andbehaviors related to humility,
authenticity, empathy.
These are how these inclusivemen are leading, and it's
leading to them getting promoted.
Ironically, women have beendoing this much more than men
for forever.
Those are some of the traitsthat are associated with women.
(37:23):
If you just disaggregateleadership data, women tend to
show up with more inclusion,more democracy in their
decision-making all of thethings that most of us value in
a leader.
Men are slowly catching up andthey're getting rewarded for it,
but we're not rewarding womenin the same way.
Speaker 2 (37:44):
That's interesting.
I did make a note that Stanfordstudy sounds fascinating.
Do you know?
You said it's from the pastseveral years.
Speaker 3 (37:54):
It's actually recent, I would say in the last year or
so.
So I can get the reference fromDave.
He often mentions that study,so it's from.
There's a big lab at Stanfordthat looks I think it's in
sociology that looks at genderequity in the workplace
Wonderful.
Yeah, there it is, I think,kendra found it Boom.
Speaker 2 (38:13):
Thank you, kendra.
Just some light reading forlater.
So what differences, if any,are you finding across
generations?
Speaker 3 (38:24):
Yes, you know that's a really interesting question.
I think part of the bias that Ihave just to own that is that
it's easy for me to look at aroom full of men who look like
me and assume that that's goingto be the problem group group.
(38:51):
That's going to be the groupthat has more of the zero-sum
thinking, more of theunwillingness to change, more of
the lack of awareness, lack ofgender intelligence.
And I think to some extent wedo see that those can be some of
the tougher customers men whohave been in the company forever
and may resist efforts toimprove equity, but I think
we're seeing just as muchdifficulty at times among junior
(39:14):
men.
So there is a book calledBrotopia.
I don't know if any of you haveseen it.
It is written by, I think it'sa woman, I think it's Chang is
her last name.
Brotopia.
It is all about the tech broculture in Silicon Valley and I
(39:34):
have to tell you it is one ofthe most cringeworthy reads you
will ever encounter, looking atwhat women experience around
overt misogyny, sexistharassment, daily in the tech
industry, because it's very mucha bro culture.
These are all young men, theseare men coming right into tech
(39:58):
companies, programmers, and so Idon't think we can always
assume it's just age.
I think some of it has to dowith the culture these men are
functioning in.
So if those men show up in thattech company and older male
engineers are socializing theminto this very sexist culture,
(40:20):
we're going to just see itperpetuated.
So again, we've got to get tocultural solutions here.
But here's one positive, I thinkyounger men millennial men and
younger are showing up expectinga workplace and a life
personally that is moreequitable around caregiving.
(40:41):
They want to be more engagedfathers.
You can see this in all thesurveys.
They want to be more equitablepartners, especially
heterosexual men.
You'll see that because moreand more we just have dual
career couples and men areunderstanding there's a lot in
this for me.
If I get to be more engagedwith my kids and my partner gets
(41:03):
to be more engaged at work andhave more possibility for
promotion, this is good for us.
So those men, I think, want tosee a different workplace.
But then again they show upinto these calcified companies
and there's not bandwidth forthem to be different.
There's not permission for themto take parental leave, there's
(41:26):
not permission for them toshare, and so again, it's an
opportunity to really take ahard look at how we do work.
Speaker 2 (41:34):
I think On a similar subject, a question that's kind
of been rattling around in mymind and I don't have the words
for it, so bear with me for aminute.
But I'm thinking about thisgreater shift to hybrid and
remote work that the pandemicbrought and how it.
I think in some ways it couldbe an equalizer and in other
(41:56):
ways it could increasedisparities, and so I think part
of my question is have you seenany research around how that
interacts with our conversationtopic today?
And if you haven't, do you haveany kind of initial thoughts or
observations that you've had onyour own?
Speaker 3 (42:17):
There is a lot actually written on this and I
think it's a really importanttopic.
I mean, I think what we learnedduring the pandemic very
clearly is that flex, remotework works and people are
happier with a lot of thosearrangements.
You know, ironically flex workhas been available for a long
(42:39):
time, even before the pandemic,but it was mostly available for
men.
Ironically, women had lessaccess to that.
During the pandemic that wassort of equaled out and I think
both men and women benefitedfrom more equitable sharing at
home.
Although the research shows mendidn't share as much at home as
they think they did, at leastthey were home more and got a
(43:03):
front row seat to whatcaregiving actually looks like
day to day.
I think there are two bigproblems that we need to address
.
Number one women we findpost-pandemic are taking
advantage of more of the flex orremote work opportunities and
are expecting that.
If we don't address how bias isgoing to creep in there, so
(43:27):
people who aren't getting theFaceTime are less likely to get
promoted.
How do we mitigate that?
How do we make sure those womenwho are remote and aren't
around the office are gettingsponsored or getting mentored or
getting noticed, having theirperformance valued.
If we don't have a way toaddress that, those women are
going to slip through the cracksand they're simply not going to
(43:50):
advance, and I think companiesare really struggling with that.
The second thing I will say andmaybe others have other ideas
here to really make flex, remotework work, men have got to take
it.
It can't just be a women'sprogram and I'm afraid that too
often that's what's happening.
It can't just be a women'sprogram and I'm afraid that too
often that's what's happening.
Still, men either feel likethey're going to be punished or
(44:15):
they're going to suffer.
If they want to be flex workersor want to be caregivers or
want to share, somehow do moreremote work, for whatever reason
, men don't do it.
They don't take advantage ofthose programs as much as women
do.
So I think until we get menusing that as much as women and
(44:36):
really sharing in an egalitarianway, then it's going to still
be stigmatized as primarily awomen's thing.
Speaker 2 (44:45):
Shifting a little bit .
So we are seeing so much realtime polarization and
politicization of DEIAB efforts.
How do you see this affectinginclusion efforts in the
workplace right now and how doyou see it evolving, and what
role do you believe men willplay in driving change?
Speaker 3 (45:07):
Yeah, what a great question.
I am seeing it.
I think anyone who you knowtunes into the news for 10
minutes is going to see this Allthe kind of pushback on you
know gosh for lack of a betterword woke programs in companies
and in universities.
I hate that term woke.
(45:30):
I think it's often used bypeople who don't understand what
diversity, equity, belongingactually is about and feel
anxious or have the zero-sumthinking.
I think this is a moment,frankly, for leadership, courage
.
I think that there is pushback.
We can't deny that.
My question is who is going tostay the course?
(45:52):
Who is going to say veryclearly let's look at the
research, let's make thisevidence-based.
The evidence is clear when weget more genuine inclusion and
representation at all levels ofleadership whether we're talking
about gender, race or any othergroup of leadership, whether
we're talking about gender raceor any other group we do better.
Companies perform moreeffectively, they're better
(46:13):
places to work, Retention ishigher, the company bottom line
is improved.
This is an evidence-based issue.
It's not political.
This is all about performanceand so many of the folks who
push back on this are people whoare big into capitalism and
business and I think they'revery incongruent on this because
(46:35):
they're ignoring the data thatthis is actually good for all of
us.
I think you know I have empathyfor this.
Dave and I were at a bigmedical school recently doing
some work and they've recentlybeen sued because they have this
world-class women's leadershipprogram.
(46:55):
It's actually won awards, it'sbeen written up in academic
journals, it has led to a hugeincrease in advancing women in
the medical schools, which is ahuge problem.
We have real lack ofrepresentation and leadership in
academic medicine and they'vebeen sued on the basis of Title
IX right.
So it's not fair for you tohave a program for women that
(47:19):
men don't have access to.
I find that a bit enraging, ofcourse, because again it ignores
the data that you have a veryuneven playing field here and
we're not giving specialprivilege.
We're actually trying to get tobalance, we're trying to get to
equity, but I see organizationslike that folding the minute a
(47:42):
lawsuit shows up and I thinklawyers drive too much of that
and I worry that unless peopleshow up with some real courage
and are willing to fight back,we may take a few steps back.
Speaker 2 (47:58):
Yeah, we're seeing situations like that here in
Oklahoma as well.
Just the other day, I believeit was, ou announced that they
were closing a women'sleadership program because they
felt it violated new rulesagainst DEIB training and we've
had a number of femalelegislators go through that
(48:20):
program and we have a drasticunderrepresentation of women in
the legislature and that'sdisappointing to see a program
like that feel like they need toclose.
That's disappointing to see aprogram like that feel like they
need to close.
So I want to put out a call tothose on the call.
If you have any last minutequestions, this is a good time
to be thinking about thosedropping them in.
(48:41):
I do have one kind of wrap upquestion for you, dr Johnson,
and that is what are three maintakeaways for VEST members and
anyone listening to this podcastepisode that you'd like to
share?
Speaker 3 (48:55):
Sure, yeah, boy, I have to narrow it down to three.
Okay, all right.
Well, here are three that Ithink are kind of top of mind
for me.
Number one there was a greatstudy by a group called
Integrating Women Leaders lastyear, and actually they've been
(49:16):
doing an annual survey relatedto male allyship and one of the
questions that they ask men ishey, if you haven't engaged in
allyship programming, genderequity programming, if you just
haven't been part of that, whyhaven't you?
The number one thing menconsistently say to that is I
(49:38):
wasn't invited.
And it may seem silly that wehave to invite men to things
related to equity, but mytakeaway is invite men, be
deliberate about it.
If you're running a women'sbusiness group or ERG in your
company and you want to get moreallies at the table, give them
(50:01):
a personal invite next timeyou're having an event and say
hey, I'd love to have you cometo this.
I see you as somebody who'sreally showing up this way, and
this is really for you too.
When men get an invitepersonally, they often are much
more likely to show up andengage, and I think that's half.
The battle sometimes is gettingmen in the room.
(50:22):
And one corollary to that is,if you're trying to do
programming for men and makethem better allies is if you're
trying to do programming for menand make them better allies,
don't call it gender blank,because men again see that and
think, oh, that's not for me.
Call it something likeinclusive leadership and you
know what.
A lot of men see that and gookay, that makes sense, it's
(50:43):
part of my leadership brand.
Sometimes it's just thebranding of things like this,
the branding of things like this.
A second thing, maybe number two, is we don't do a good job
showing men what's in it forthem.
Too often, when we haveprograms around equity and
belonging and gender, men think,oh, this is just for women, and
(51:07):
why do I want to expend allthis energy being a better ally
for women?
This is not just for women.
There's lots of researchshowing that when men are more
inclusive leaders and betterallies, have more relationships,
richer networks with women intheir organizations, they do
better, they're more likely toget promoted, they're more
(51:27):
likely to be seen as inclusiveleaders, they develop better EQ,
they develop bettercommunication skills, and these
are not just things I get toemploy and enjoy in the
workplace.
I get to take these home to bea better partner, better parent.
This is just good for men whenthey show up in these spaces.
So we have to do a better job,I think, helping men understand
(51:51):
why gender equity is good forthem, not just women.
And then, finally, let's talkabout caregiving, maybe as my
last bullet here, I want torecommend to everybody on the
call today if you haven't readit, make sure you get your hands
on Eve Rodsky's book Fair Play.
Sure you get your hands on EveRodsky's book Fair Play.
I don't know if anybody hasread Fair Play.
(52:12):
I'm a big fan of Eve's.
Eve has written a terrific bookon how partners can share
caregiving, domestic work,homeschooling, whatever it is.
We know that in the year 2024,it is.
(52:34):
We know that in the year 2024,heterosexual, dual career
couples chances are really good.
She's doing double the amountof caregiving and housework than
he's doing, and one thing oughtto be crystal clear to us we
are never going to level theplaying field when it comes to
pay and advancement unless menstart showing up at home.
And this is not just doing thedishes and spending time with
(52:55):
your own children.
This is also all the hiddencognitive, emotional labor, all
of that stuff like keeping listsand planning events and knowing
your children's clothing sizes.
If you, as a man, are notshowing up in this space and
doing better here, we have along way to go, so caregiving.
So if any of you on the callare partnered with men, maybe
(53:20):
get fair play and read ittogether.
What a fun couple activity.
Speaker 1 (53:26):
If you enjoyed this episode, share it with a friend
and don't forget to leave us areview.
And if you're ready to takeyour career to the next level,
apply to join our community ofprofessional women, all eager to
help you get there and staythere.
Go to wwwbestherco and applytoday.
Popular Podcasts
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.