It turns out the rumour about Walt Disney being cryogenically frozen until a cure for lung cancer could be found was just that. A rumour. Its persistence comes from its appeal as an idea and the misplaced hope it generates.
It seems Disney is not the only American corporation investing in the misplaced hope that cryogenics offers. For those of you who thought that a company car, stock options and a private medical insurance were the top tier in employee benefits, you may need to think again. It was recently revealed that Apple and Facebook are offering female employees up to $20,000 to freeze their eggs, so as to delay the onset (as in the onset of a disease) of children.
The argument in favour of these initiatives goes along the lines of why should women interrupt their careers at a crucial stage? Wait until you have established yourself in your career before wrecking it by having kids. I can almost hear Sheryl Sandberg urging 30 somethings to ‘lean-in’ to the stirrups to facilitate the egg-removal. One quick clinical procedure later and motherhood is delayed until a career convenient time in the future, where they might even have invented a procedure for freezing babies who keep them up the night before that crucial presentation.
This idea is terrible on so many levels I feel reluctant to list them, but I will give it a go.
We all have a right to a private life. Organisational involvement in conception rather flouts this right. Imagine the conversation with your Line Manager to access this employee ‘benefit’. Perhaps your manager will become involved and send you a meeting invite for your child’s birth?
This initiative thrives on misplaced hope. The fact is that the success rate of a live birth from a frozen egg is very low. Just because a great deal of money has been spent on egg freezing does not guarantee success. Women will be more likely to conceive naturally. If schemes like this gain traction, there will be women who don’t become mothers who could have become mothers. I’m not sure that ethical businesses should be facilitating this risk.
Egg removal sounds very clinical and straightforward. The reality is very different. Eggs are harvested after a woman has been on a drug regime for 6 weeks which amongst other side effects, impacts mood. This is followed by an uncomfortable procedure. More of the same follows at the embryo implantation phase, with no guarantees of success.
This all sends a very dangerous message about women and motherhood to society. Delaying or avoiding motherhood equals career commitment whilst having a baby is for those who are not prepared to invest in their careers. These women now have a choice about when to conceive and if they want to prioritise motherhood over their career, why should I support her career?
The most troubling aspect of all this for me as a man is that, again, men are let off the hook. Gender equality will never be realised unless men invest in the care of their children to the same extent as women.
Imagine an average couple who start a family. The mother will tend to take maternity leave of 9 months and may return to work but perhaps in a part-time capacity. During her child’s infancy, she might experience reduced development opportunities and miss out on a number of promotion opportunities. She may be seen as less reliable due to increased absences to look after her sick child or through needing to do the school run. Now compare this with the experience of the father. The father returns to work after 2 weeks of paternity leave. This is a positive experience for him as his co-workers and, importantly, his boss will now recognise his warmth as a caregiver as well as his abilities to lead. During his child’s infancy he experiences rapid career progression as going home at a respectable time involves nappies, reading stories and screaming kids, he might as well stay in the calm work environment and take on that extra assignment. During this same period, several of his female employees have babies and he benefits from the increase in opportunities this creates.
Of course this imagined couple invokes several stereotypes that many will find offensive. The point though is that men benefit from women going on maternity leave, whether this happens now or 10 years later with some defrosted eggs. Unless more men are prepared to share the responsibility of parenthood, women will continue to be discriminated against.
When I began my career, over 30 years ago, it was generally accepted that the reason why there were so few women in senior positions was because men were better suited to them. Men were rational, analytical and decisive. Women were openly described as emotional, hormonal and indecisive. The negative portrayal of women was, quite rightly, objected to and so the nature and tone of the descriptions has changed.
Today there is a line of thought that my wife, Jo Kandola, and I call the 'valuing differences' approach. The approach, which we describe in our new book, The Invention of Difference: The Story of Gender Bias at Work, says that not only do the two genders have different styles of working but that women's style is under-valued. Male strengths are the same as they ever were-rational, analytical and decisive. Female strengths however are now seen as being compassionate, caring and empathetic. The argument goes that if you had a mix of men and women in the team then you'd have the perfect blend of skills: the women's qualities complementing those of the men. Whilst the advocates of this position think they are talking about 'valuing difference' they are in reality perpetuating age old stereotypes.
All stereotypes are essentially an evaluation of a group on two dimensions: competence and warmth. Thirty years ago both men and women were being assessed on competence-men having it and women lacking it. Today whilst male strengths are still in the area of competence, women strengths are seen as being in the domain of warmth. And as we all know, in business it is competence that counts. The positive descriptions make the stereotypes very appealing and many women will accept them as accurate. But make no mistake they are still stereotypes. This is made worse by something known as the innuendo effect: the things that we do not discuss are seen as lacking. In other words women will still be viewed as less competent.
The media constantly reports on research that shows that men and women have different qualities and styles of working. The gender differences are continually being reinforced. It is, to coin a phrase, the politically correct view of the genders. Inconveniently however the research on personality differences between the genders at work, over the last 30 years, reveals that there is, to all intents and purposes, no difference. Whilst individual studies may reveal a variance these are difficult to replicate and any differences are invariably very small. The truth is that women can be task focussed and decisive; men can be compassionate and caring.
It follows from this that women will be equally capable of being leaders both now and in the future. Why then does the Davies report state that organisations should have 25% of their boards as female and why does the 30% Club set the target five points higher? The correct figure is clearly 50%. Davies and the 30% Club have set targets which are arbitrary and lack logic. Because of their misreading, or ignorance, of the research they have ensured that whilst some short-term gains may be possible they have colluded with a system that deprives many women of having their talents fully recognised and valued.
As George Carlin the American comedian said: 'Men are from Earth and women are from Earth. Get over it.'
Title: The Invention of Difference - The story of
gender bias at work
Authors: Binna Kandola and Jo Kandola
ISBN: 978-0-9562318-1-9
Language: English
Published: 25 November 2013
Publisher: Pearn Kandola Publishing
Format: Print and eBook