The White House Project

Stephanie Rogen (Vice President, Corporate Leadership Programs)

It’s becoming tiresome.  Ron Suskind’s controversial book Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington and the Education of a President and the follow-up article in the September 20 Washington Post fan the flames of a long-standing battle cry. Women, even at the highest levels of office are intentionally muscled out of decision-making. They are sidelined in policy creation.  Sexual discrimination and gender bias march onward.  Men are the problem.

Let’s take this opportunity to reframe the conversation.  Whether or not Mr. Suskind’s assertions are accurate (and there is much to suggest that they are not entirely so), there is a more important issue than the gender wars at stake: the critical need for inclusive and diverse leadership.  Rather than assert that women are intentionally sidelined, let us ask why leadership is not operating in a fully inclusive manner.  What do we need to understand in order to answer this question, and how do we move forward to strengthen the leadership of our nation?

Women and men are different. Let’s start by accepting this cold, hard fact.  Then let’s leverage it. Oftentimes, women and men read situations and behaviors differently, they assert themselves differently, and they often communicate differently.  The good news is that if we are both capable, our differences expand and enhance our collective intelligence.   We just have to know how to work together effectively.

Suskind provokes a question for this reader: why do women feel they are muscled out? Why do they feel they have less access to Obama in his cabinet? The answers may have more to do with leadership styles and assumptions about male and female operating behaviors than gender bias. Certainly we recognize that obstacles and ingrained biases exist for any population vis a vis another.  And we also know that male-female relationships in the workplace are uniquely nuanced, and should not be misconstrued. But perhaps there is more to consider.

Suskind’s title gives us a great starting point: Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington and the Education of a President.  This president’s cabinet is not surprisingly made up of high-powered, competitive, and assertive men.  It’s a tough, “take no prisoners” dynamic and it defines the rules of the game.  Is it possible that the men simply assumed that women would play the same way? Did the men treat the women differently than other men, or just in ways that felt less comfortable to women? Should women have asserted themselves accordingly, rather than assume they were being treated unfairly? Should men have changed their operating behaviors to make it easier for women to feel included? Should the rules of the game be examined?

The answer is yes to all of these questions.  In early days, Mr. Obama assumed a high-charged and competitive dynamic was simply the nature of the game.  But when Valerie Jarrett insisted he look more closely, he paid attention and addressed the issue directly.  Clearly, Mr. Obama was interested in inclusive leadership and he appointed increasing numbers of women to top positions.  Women generally entered his top staff after his campaign; many of the men already had forged strong relationships with the president on the campaign trail.  While that may be a disadvantage to incoming women, it is not necessarily reflective of gender bias.  It did put a heavier burden on women to build alliances and forge a path to the president.  And that is politics in any high-stakes environment.  Women must take full responsibility for this work, and clearly, Valerie Jarrett did her fair share.

Let’s focus on what else may work.  Obama did his part and met with the women on his team to explore how to improve things. I wonder if he did more or could do more.  It is Mr. Obama’s responsibility (and any leader, for that matter) to cultivate a climate of inclusivity and collaboration.  That requires bringing men and women to the table together, and doing a good job of listening to one another and learning from each other.  From there, everyone needs to play by the same rules. If we don’t have consistent rules and standards, if we create preferences or make special accommodations, we undermine our assertion that it is a level playing field. 

Let’s take a two-pronged approach: women, please focus less on the obstacles to your leadership as a woman and more on your own capacity to succeed irrespective of gender; take time to understand and accept differences in the way men behave and communicate and figure out how you can work together.  Play to your strengths and use them to your advantage.  At The White House Project we inspire women to develop six specific competencies: viability, effective storytelling, empathy, as well as being well-networked, politically savvy, and strategic. We’ve learned these traits are consistent in successful leaders no matter their background, gender, age, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or geographic location.

Men, take responsibility for including women, recognizing and respecting that there are some differences in how we operate.  Together with women, set ground rules for respect and inclusivity and ensure they are upheld.  Practice working together and learn how to do it better.

Great leadership that includes capable, competent and diverse perspectives produces better outcomes. Let’s change the conversations and change the leadership landscape for the 21^st century.  We’ve got big problems to solve and even greater opportunities.