Why I Now Believe the Glass Ceiling Is Real(stream.wsj.com)
stream.wsj.com
Why I Now Believe the Glass Ceiling Is Real
http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-352397/
67 comments
This isn't about that kind of sexism. It's about a softer sexism that's really about familiarity.
It's real, and it's a problem. Look at how Hilary Clinton was dealt with by critics and her handlers during her run for the presidential nomination. They were worried if she was feminine enough. I thought it was totally absurd, pointless, and even stupid, but I suspect it made sense to people in their late 50s and 60s.
In the same way, I'm kinda comfortable with the way Michelle Obama is treated by her supporters in the media - but if I stand back and really analyze it, it's patently sexist and offensive. Who cares about her domesticity? She was a CEO. What she brings to the table is being able to potentially work on policy or be a political operative. To people in their 40s (and maybe even 30s), though, this sexist treatment in the media makes us comfortable.
Even Laura Bush could have been an operative - but her party is old, and that just wouldn't fly. We're in the age of the power couple, and that's reality, but our biases and sexism will prevent this from being accepted for a decade or more.
It's real, and it's a problem. Look at how Hilary Clinton was dealt with by critics and her handlers during her run for the presidential nomination. They were worried if she was feminine enough. I thought it was totally absurd, pointless, and even stupid, but I suspect it made sense to people in their late 50s and 60s.
In the same way, I'm kinda comfortable with the way Michelle Obama is treated by her supporters in the media - but if I stand back and really analyze it, it's patently sexist and offensive. Who cares about her domesticity? She was a CEO. What she brings to the table is being able to potentially work on policy or be a political operative. To people in their 40s (and maybe even 30s), though, this sexist treatment in the media makes us comfortable.
Even Laura Bush could have been an operative - but her party is old, and that just wouldn't fly. We're in the age of the power couple, and that's reality, but our biases and sexism will prevent this from being accepted for a decade or more.
It's often quite easy to attach beliefs to events in the past.
-- snip --
I responded and she continued: “Right, well, it’s because you’re young and female.”
-- snip --
I feel like I missed some steps here. It sounds like it went like this: Person agrees to job. Person signs agreement. Person declines job.[1] The male cofounder contacts this person and offers more money, a better position, and reporting to him.
Then we also learn the author had been considering leaving for a while.
So three things in play:
a) candidate was offered a much better deal to come on board[2] and
b) maybe the candidate picked up on her potential lack of commitment, even the fact that in her mind she was not sur about staying with the company. Perhaps he did this on a subconscious level - making this something that would be hard to put his finger on. Comments about her "energy level" seem to hint that this may be true as well; and
c) maybe the candidate had an issue with gender.
A couple of other revealing snips:
"As a co-founder, your role is to attract the best talent to compete in the market" and "The answer is not hiring quotas or prettier bathrooms. It’s strong leadership."
It seems to me that - regardless of gender - it is possible that the author does not or did not at the time possess these qualities. And that is a deal breaker to certain types of potential hires.
There are simply too many variables in this equation to conclusively state - as the author has done - that her gender was the obvious catalyst to his vacillation.[3]
[1] Do you really want to hire someone who breaks his given word so easily?
[2] Actually this means one of two things: he went back on his word to another company, or he never had another job lined up and was just playing them for a better deal. Either way: not someone I'd want at the top of my org .
[3] Alternatively there is information omitted from this account that would make the rationale more clear.
edit I can English.
I feel like I missed some steps here. It sounds like it went like this: Person agrees to job. Person signs agreement. Person declines job.[1] The male cofounder contacts this person and offers more money, a better position, and reporting to him.
Then we also learn the author had been considering leaving for a while.
So three things in play:
a) candidate was offered a much better deal to come on board[2] and
b) maybe the candidate picked up on her potential lack of commitment, even the fact that in her mind she was not sur about staying with the company. Perhaps he did this on a subconscious level - making this something that would be hard to put his finger on. Comments about her "energy level" seem to hint that this may be true as well; and
c) maybe the candidate had an issue with gender.
A couple of other revealing snips:
"As a co-founder, your role is to attract the best talent to compete in the market" and "The answer is not hiring quotas or prettier bathrooms. It’s strong leadership."
It seems to me that - regardless of gender - it is possible that the author does not or did not at the time possess these qualities. And that is a deal breaker to certain types of potential hires.
There are simply too many variables in this equation to conclusively state - as the author has done - that her gender was the obvious catalyst to his vacillation.[3]
[1] Do you really want to hire someone who breaks his given word so easily?
[2] Actually this means one of two things: he went back on his word to another company, or he never had another job lined up and was just playing them for a better deal. Either way: not someone I'd want at the top of my org .
[3] Alternatively there is information omitted from this account that would make the rationale more clear.
edit I can English.
Gee, she is pretty hard on herself in the post.
“Right, well, it’s because you’re young and female.”
But I don't think that was the reason...
"After lengthy negotiations including a bump to VP, an increase in salary and signing bonus, the rock star senior director re-joined"
There we go. Money talks and bullshit walks.
“Right, well, it’s because you’re young and female.”
But I don't think that was the reason...
"After lengthy negotiations including a bump to VP, an increase in salary and signing bonus, the rock star senior director re-joined"
There we go. Money talks and bullshit walks.
Why didn't he hint that during negotiations then?
My guess is that he just didn't feel comfortable reporting to a younger woman. Maybe he couldn't really figure it out, but he wasn't put into his comfort zone and backed off.
Dealing with a male, even a younger one, was probably easier. A bump in the title probably helped, too.
My guess is that he just didn't feel comfortable reporting to a younger woman. Maybe he couldn't really figure it out, but he wasn't put into his comfort zone and backed off.
Dealing with a male, even a younger one, was probably easier. A bump in the title probably helped, too.
I think I could come up with at least a dozen equally plausible reasons why he wouldn't 'hint it during the negotiations' that have nothing to do with sexism.
Sorry, low-value comment incoming. Web designers, please, never capture keypresses of the up and down arrows and make them do anything but vertical scrolling.
If you think that is a low-value comment, you have obviously not read the other discussions about sexism in tech.
You made my day. Or night being precise.
Sad thing is that key-rebinding is the first thing I noticed on that site. Glad I'm not alone.
"He outlined a few specifics — I’d taken two to three days to give feedback to his presentation. My energy level in our last meeting had given him pause. But even when I pressed for more detail, he reiterated that it wasn’t just one particular thing but rather a general sentiment that had accumulated with time. Despite our signed offer, he had already accepted another position. This was goodbye."
If that's the only evidence I'm allowed to read from the writer, then I'm missing how that could construed as sexism.
If that's the only evidence I'm allowed to read from the writer, then I'm missing how that could construed as sexism.
In my opinion articles like this further entrench any sexism that is out there.
I, for example, am admittedly sexist. This doesn't mean I would never hire a woman, or even have a bias towards a man over a woman. What it does mean is, I believe with great certainty that men and women on average have tendencies. Males are not guaranteed to, but are statistically more likely to commit violent crime and other such things, so I can't understand how so many believe it is impossible that females are likewise statistically more likely to exhibit certain traits. And one tendency that in my experience women tend to exhibit more frequently than men is towards victimhood. Too often, if something doesn't turn out their way, they chalk it up to sexism, or some other conspiracy, when usually it's just simple bad luck.
I, for example, am admittedly sexist. This doesn't mean I would never hire a woman, or even have a bias towards a man over a woman. What it does mean is, I believe with great certainty that men and women on average have tendencies. Males are not guaranteed to, but are statistically more likely to commit violent crime and other such things, so I can't understand how so many believe it is impossible that females are likewise statistically more likely to exhibit certain traits. And one tendency that in my experience women tend to exhibit more frequently than men is towards victimhood. Too often, if something doesn't turn out their way, they chalk it up to sexism, or some other conspiracy, when usually it's just simple bad luck.
I can empathize here but at the same time she is calling this person publically (in the Journal!) a sexist without a whole lot of hard evidence (or if she has more, she didn't present it here.) I'm sure it won't take long for the internet detectives to figure out who this person is. That's pretty harsh.
err. sure, but that's how it goes whenever you're questioning the rational behind someone's decision. What evidence could exist? There's no go back to state save and play it with the male character test. You can't find out what he was thinking, and he'd never tell you. He'd give you a perfectly rational line of thought. Humans are fantastic at rationalizing their decisions. This is why sexism is such an ugly subject. The only practical way we have to view it is from an objective distance with aggregate data. You can not personalize it. What frustrates me is how personal most sexism stories are.
To be fair, I don't think any Internet detective would care enough.
What really rubs me the wrong way about this article is the way it comes off as her crying wolf. It's bad for the women that actually experience proper sexism that truly limits their potential. The way I read this article is that she had a bad read on how eager her candidate was to accept the position, low-balled him on the offer and he decided he would take a better offer somewhere else. Nothing about that is sexism and yet calling it sexism is hurting the cause.
What really rubs me the wrong way about this article is the way it comes off as her crying wolf. It's bad for the women that actually experience proper sexism that truly limits their potential. The way I read this article is that she had a bad read on how eager her candidate was to accept the position, low-balled him on the offer and he decided he would take a better offer somewhere else. Nothing about that is sexism and yet calling it sexism is hurting the cause.
He had already accepted the offer, attened product meetings, and discussed hiring strategy for employees, then he threatened to bail at the last moment. Don't you think that's a bit flaky? Since after renegotiation, he joined the company after all, did he then flake on the anonymous other company with whom ehe had supposedly accepted a better position?
Any reasonable alternative, short of not telling the story?
She could have reached out to this person and told them she was writing this and if they had anything they'd want her to include. Regardless of how they rationalized it, as sexism or not, in any case this would have provided an important epilogue to include in her story.
In other words, if this person had even the slightest possibility of seeing it her way and coming out and apologizing for their actions and learning of their mistake, they certainly won't now. If anything the reaction will be to try to save face by telling everyone that she overreacted and is seeing sexism where there was none, regardless of the truth.
In other words, if this person had even the slightest possibility of seeing it her way and coming out and apologizing for their actions and learning of their mistake, they certainly won't now. If anything the reaction will be to try to save face by telling everyone that she overreacted and is seeing sexism where there was none, regardless of the truth.
I think the article was not calling them out, so much as calling out the environment that caused her to be unable to lead.
Hopefully we don't get people trying to make it into something it's not (a vendetta)
Hopefully we don't get people trying to make it into something it's not (a vendetta)
It's not a vendetta but publishing a story about how a specific person is a sexist who can be easily identified isn't exactly a very fair thing to do to that person when there is clearly a non-trivial likelihood this was not actual sexism.
Perhaps not intentional sexism, but I'd say this is very real. Though I think she might want a new coach who isn't going to jump to conclusions.
There is clearly insufficient evidence in this story to know either way. If you can "say this is very real" then I don't think you read the same article I did. There are plenty of other explanations for what happened to her, given what she told us, other than that the person did not want to work with her because she was a woman.
I'm saying that the fact that, from his perspective (and somewhat from hers, self-deprecation has awful effects), she had lower standing than he did, probably helped fuel this. Even if it wasn't her gender that caused it, but her youth.
It's hard to not be ageist, but in this case I think there was some of that "she's half my age so why is she higher ranking than me" involved.
But you're definitely right that there's not much evidence here. I can still make assumptions no matter how much of an ass they make me.
It's hard to not be ageist, but in this case I think there was some of that "she's half my age so why is she higher ranking than me" involved.
But you're definitely right that there's not much evidence here. I can still make assumptions no matter how much of an ass they make me.
There's sexist and there's sexist. Even the nicest person can be biased, and the bias can be basically invisible to everyone involved. Sexism isn't just about male chauvanists.
Yes of course and the fuzzy nature of identifying where this kind of latent bias exists is why articles about it are best done in a manner that can not identify individuals specifically and potentially ruin their lives.
I highly doubt that one charge of sexism is going to ruin his life, especially when so many people are running to defend him. I didn't even see his name in the article.
I have no idea what truly happened but it seems:
I think it's great she has a coach, honestly, I am not sure that's a privilege many of us have.
I don't know who this rock star was or where they ended up, but meebo, didn't that finish as an acqui-hire?
1. younger person finds *rock star* older person
2. older person says yes, then says no, and says
well I am not impressed enough with you
3. company says report to a higher up, and we will
vp'gold you
4. younger person says sexism!
I think it's great she has a coach, honestly, I am not sure that's a privilege many of us have.
I don't know who this rock star was or where they ended up, but meebo, didn't that finish as an acqui-hire?
The "higher up" in this case was Seth Sternberg, born 1979 according to CrunchBase. I'm guessing Elaine and Seth are about the same age.
Yes, however he is still a higher up (President) and the new employee's title is vice-president with one connection from the president not manager or sr. connecting to VP connecting to president.
I have a hard time seeing why she thinks the problem is her gender.
What about her skills? Her personality? Her past achievements?
And while the other one says "Older men don’t want to report to young females!", why is it the gender that pops out? What about young?
What about her skills? Her personality? Her past achievements?
And while the other one says "Older men don’t want to report to young females!", why is it the gender that pops out? What about young?
Because he was happy to join the company reporting to her co-founder, who seems to be about the same age as she is (early 30s). And as I've pointed out above, he had already accepted the position, started attending company meetings, and then pulled out a few days before he was due to take up his full-time duties.
With a bump in pay and position.
He could have obtained that by simply saying 'you're great, I love working with you, but I'm being offered more elsewhere.' He'd still have been reporting to a co-founder, not a junior employee. I find it weird that people insist on discounting this factor.
Because it's true. Older men don't like to report to younger people in general, but are more okay with younger men than younger women.
This is, by far, the most level-headed article on sexism in business and technology that I've ever read. The fight for equality didn't fail, we just haven't finished it yet. But the fight from here doesn't require anger or protests like it did in past decades. Now it requires leadership, and we need to switch gears.
As for anger, I'll be directing mine at the Wall Street Journal for making it so I couldn't scroll with arrow keys: I almost gave up reading (and I'm glad I didn't)
As for anger, I'll be directing mine at the Wall Street Journal for making it so I couldn't scroll with arrow keys: I almost gave up reading (and I'm glad I didn't)
This is very similar to the central idea of Sheryl Sandberg's "Lean In". Having more and better women in leadership positions will help both men and women. I was skeptical, but I enjoyed the book more than I expected.
Progress in equality benefits everybody, no matter how much people try to claim otherwise. Diversity is an amazingly good thing.
Some people take the primitive view that anything that helps women must hurt men. It makes me sad.
There's still plenty of room for anger and protests. Maybe not in this particular situation, because it's basically an elite situation where you're trying to effect a cultural change, but in other situations rage is necessary.
Anger is necessary, but rage is never good. Rage only leads to self-destruction and scope accretion.
Of course, in some places, rage is the only way to outdo the powers-that-be. But once you've outdone them, you must switch gears.
Of course, in some places, rage is the only way to outdo the powers-that-be. But once you've outdone them, you must switch gears.
I see that many people here think that not her being young and female, but him gunning for a better position was the real cause of this.
When he told her on the phone that he would not join because of HER, he cut off any possibility of her making him a better offer. So no, it was not him gunning for a better position, he was uncomfortable with her. Was that because she was young, or because she was female, or because of other facets of her personality, we will not know. But common sense pretty much points to a combination of young and female.
When he told her on the phone that he would not join because of HER, he cut off any possibility of her making him a better offer. So no, it was not him gunning for a better position, he was uncomfortable with her. Was that because she was young, or because she was female, or because of other facets of her personality, we will not know. But common sense pretty much points to a combination of young and female.
Two things,
First. I was set off by the complete lack of evidence for the sexism case. The setting that assert sexism is in play is limited to:
Second. Although the storyline is not a convincing anecdote, it still has value. It is interesting to see that:
First. I was set off by the complete lack of evidence for the sexism case. The setting that assert sexism is in play is limited to:
[...] and she continued: “Right, well, it’s because you’re
young and female.”
Second. Although the storyline is not a convincing anecdote, it still has value. It is interesting to see that:
* It's not necessarily people higher in your company that will prevent a women from
getting promoted.
* It's not necessarily that women won't get hired for a higher position.
* If it seems the problem of sexism is solved for many, older individuals still form a
majority in the senior/execs layers, and their older generation may have sexist ways.
I wonder if he would have reported to her if they offered him the same stuff they gave him after the negotiation ("a bump to VP, an increase in salary and signing bonus") but required him to report to her.
It might surprise the author to know guys get rejected (professionally) by other guys all the time, with no credible reason given. Your "coach" told you it was sexism? Get a new coach.
But this wasn't a straight rejection. He had accepted an offer, signed on with the company, and started attending strategy meetings, then announced he was quitting only days before he was due to begin full-time. And if we beliece his version of events (about going to another firm), he did the same thing to them. that's very far from professional behavior.
Certainly that's true. But that has nothing to do with sexism or glass ceilings (a term she's misusing here).
I think this is the first article I've read on sexism in tech where the "glass ceiling" has been explained in terms of how it would/does/might actually manifest itself in real life, instead of in generalities like "society is sexist." Whether or not this story actually reflects sexism, at least the author is giving us a real story with actual information that causes us to evaluate our experiences from a new perspective. It's much appreciated.
The women in this article assume they can read minds and divine intentions from a very sparse base of facts. To jump to the conclusion that those who chose not to do business with you are seeking to enforce the 'Old Boys Club' (when in fact they were strangers, who were forming a new 'club', or business) and keep women out, is outrageously disrespectful and malicious.
"This was a political land grab spurred by a perception of female weakness. I’d acquiesced too soon and it was still my fault, but for a very different reason."
So there's a "perception" of female weakness which spurred the exploitation of said weakness and the female in question acquiesced? It may just be me, but this isn't about the glass ceiling, it's about the author perpetuating the stereotype that women are weak by doing exactly what the bias suggests.
Personally, I'd have send an email to the "company" who hired the "rockstar" and congratulated them with a little passive aggressive message of "I was quite surprised to hear he decided to join you after signing papers with us."
So there's a "perception" of female weakness which spurred the exploitation of said weakness and the female in question acquiesced? It may just be me, but this isn't about the glass ceiling, it's about the author perpetuating the stereotype that women are weak by doing exactly what the bias suggests.
Personally, I'd have send an email to the "company" who hired the "rockstar" and congratulated them with a little passive aggressive message of "I was quite surprised to hear he decided to join you after signing papers with us."
Since it took me an absurdly long time to figure out how to read this in a non-awful format, here's a link for others:
http://blogs.wsj.com/accelerators/2013/10/11/elaine-wherry-w...
http://blogs.wsj.com/accelerators/2013/10/11/elaine-wherry-w...
The article doesn't load for me, I just see a bunch of pictures.
The glass ceiling has always been real. It will continue to exist until the human race is extinct. Humans prejudice each other based on whatever traits they decide they don't like.
The glass ceiling has always been real. It will continue to exist until the human race is extinct. Humans prejudice each other based on whatever traits they decide they don't like.
[deleted]
So, a potential employee decides not to work with your startup and you immediately jump to the conclusion that it's because you're female?
It sounds to me like he found a better job and just needed to give you an excuse.
On top of this, this was not your boss, this is someone you were trying to hire. You can turn down a job for any reason and it has nothing to do with the "glass ceiling".
Aren't we allowed to have opinions these days? If I don't like you and you just happen to be black, a woman, gay, etc..does it always have to be because of these traits..and not because you're an asshole?
It sounds to me like he found a better job and just needed to give you an excuse.
On top of this, this was not your boss, this is someone you were trying to hire. You can turn down a job for any reason and it has nothing to do with the "glass ceiling".
Aren't we allowed to have opinions these days? If I don't like you and you just happen to be black, a woman, gay, etc..does it always have to be because of these traits..and not because you're an asshole?
So, a potential employee decides not to work with your startup and you immediately jump to the conclusion that it's because you're female?
No, she immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was her fault and she then sacrificed her own future with the company in order to get this person onto the team. Some time later her coach pointed out that she overlooked the possibility of an age/gender issue.
Why, I wonder, did you choose to completely mischaracterize the content of the article?
On top of this, this was not your boss, this is someone you were trying to hire. You can turn down a job for any reason and it has nothing to do with the "glass ceiling".
Backing out of an accepted job offer is a bit different from 'turning down a job'.
Aren't we allowed to have opinions these days? If I don't like you and you just happen to be black, a woman, gay, etc..does it always have to be because of these traits..and not because you're an asshole?
Nobody forced the candidate to accept the job offer before backing out of it on a rather flimsy pretext. He hadn't even started work yet, so I wonder what basis you think he had for deciding that his then-future boss was 'an asshole.'
No, she immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was her fault and she then sacrificed her own future with the company in order to get this person onto the team. Some time later her coach pointed out that she overlooked the possibility of an age/gender issue.
Why, I wonder, did you choose to completely mischaracterize the content of the article?
On top of this, this was not your boss, this is someone you were trying to hire. You can turn down a job for any reason and it has nothing to do with the "glass ceiling".
Backing out of an accepted job offer is a bit different from 'turning down a job'.
Aren't we allowed to have opinions these days? If I don't like you and you just happen to be black, a woman, gay, etc..does it always have to be because of these traits..and not because you're an asshole?
Nobody forced the candidate to accept the job offer before backing out of it on a rather flimsy pretext. He hadn't even started work yet, so I wonder what basis you think he had for deciding that his then-future boss was 'an asshole.'
Why, I wonder, did you choose to completely mischaracterize the content of the article?
That's a little unfair. The article's title frames the story in reference to the glass ceiling. That the grandparent comment used the word "immediately" does not change the fact that this entire article is about sexism; even if it was only explicitly mentioned at the end, it is the author's point that sexism caused these events. It's not as though she wrote an article detailing these events and then threw in what her coach said because it's thought-provoking -- she actually believes it, factual or not.
Backing out of an accepted job offer is a bit different from 'turning down a job'.
While this sentence is true, it doesn't answer what the grandparent said. You can turn down a job, back out of a job, quit a job - whatever, for whatever reasons you want, and they don't have to remotely involve the glass ceiling.
Nobody forced the candidate to accept the job offer before backing out of it on a rather flimsy pretext. He hadn't even started work yet, so I wonder what basis you think he had for deciding that his then-future boss was 'an asshole.'
Similar to how rejection letters from a company are almost always form letters and not personal details about your interview performance, I don't see why you'd expect anything other than a flimsy excuse from a candidate turning down the job.
And the grandparent wasn't saying the author is an asshole, just that it is an equally plausible explanation to her being a woman, young, gay, a dominatrix, diseased, whatever.
I get what you're saying, anigbrowl, but I have to disagree. I fully believe sexism exists in tech, and most of the stories on HN about it are probably the real deal. But this doesn't have enough evidence to give me that impression. If anything, I'd say it's more that he didn't want to be the subordinate of an unassertive young person (ageism), not a female.
That's a little unfair. The article's title frames the story in reference to the glass ceiling. That the grandparent comment used the word "immediately" does not change the fact that this entire article is about sexism; even if it was only explicitly mentioned at the end, it is the author's point that sexism caused these events. It's not as though she wrote an article detailing these events and then threw in what her coach said because it's thought-provoking -- she actually believes it, factual or not.
Backing out of an accepted job offer is a bit different from 'turning down a job'.
While this sentence is true, it doesn't answer what the grandparent said. You can turn down a job, back out of a job, quit a job - whatever, for whatever reasons you want, and they don't have to remotely involve the glass ceiling.
Nobody forced the candidate to accept the job offer before backing out of it on a rather flimsy pretext. He hadn't even started work yet, so I wonder what basis you think he had for deciding that his then-future boss was 'an asshole.'
Similar to how rejection letters from a company are almost always form letters and not personal details about your interview performance, I don't see why you'd expect anything other than a flimsy excuse from a candidate turning down the job.
And the grandparent wasn't saying the author is an asshole, just that it is an equally plausible explanation to her being a woman, young, gay, a dominatrix, diseased, whatever.
I get what you're saying, anigbrowl, but I have to disagree. I fully believe sexism exists in tech, and most of the stories on HN about it are probably the real deal. But this doesn't have enough evidence to give me that impression. If anything, I'd say it's more that he didn't want to be the subordinate of an unassertive young person (ageism), not a female.
I have my doubts about how much sexism was in play, but I also accept that the writer of the article necessarily has more first hand experience of the situation than can be adequately laid out in a short column (which may in turn have been edited for length by a copy editor). Note as well that she is going out of her way to be circumspect about the identity of the person in question; I am perfectly willing to believe that there's more to the story but that she is choosing to exercise some discretion to avoid impinging on the person as an individual and also to avoid the possibility of a libel accusation. I don't think ageism is a big issue here since the star hire was apparently happy to end up reporting to the author's (then) 32 year old cofounder, and the author appears to be of a similar age.
The point I'm making above is that the grandparent poster seems to have some need to make up facts that are not present in the original story in order to justify his angry tone. In short, I think he has a giant chip on his shoulder.
What I think you and a lot of other posters are missing is the import of her paragraph about how diversity costs; when they were a freewheeling write-the-r-own-rules startup they could afford to blow off or ignore anyone who tried to leverage personal biases such as sexism, ageism, or anything really. Once they were funded and had investors whose expectations they had to satisfy, they were also obliged to deal with suppliers (of skills in this case) whose economic apparent economic benefit outweighed the ancillary costs in terms of team cohesion and founder status. She's pointing this out as an example of systematic discrimination - not in the casual but incorrect sense that most people use the term, involving some villainous type whose primary goal is to disenfranchise others, but as an unfortunate consequence of the laws of supply and demand.
If you need to hire a hotshot in some specialized field and the expected value of that person's economic contribution is greater than the cost of buying out a cofounder, then said cofounder is at the mercy of any personal biases that the hotshot might have. And being a hotshot is absolutely not correlated with any kind of superior moral development. I have met plenty of highly skilled people who were leaders in their field but who were markedly undeveloped in other respects, and indeed I could say the same of myself in some respects.
The point I'm making above is that the grandparent poster seems to have some need to make up facts that are not present in the original story in order to justify his angry tone. In short, I think he has a giant chip on his shoulder.
What I think you and a lot of other posters are missing is the import of her paragraph about how diversity costs; when they were a freewheeling write-the-r-own-rules startup they could afford to blow off or ignore anyone who tried to leverage personal biases such as sexism, ageism, or anything really. Once they were funded and had investors whose expectations they had to satisfy, they were also obliged to deal with suppliers (of skills in this case) whose economic apparent economic benefit outweighed the ancillary costs in terms of team cohesion and founder status. She's pointing this out as an example of systematic discrimination - not in the casual but incorrect sense that most people use the term, involving some villainous type whose primary goal is to disenfranchise others, but as an unfortunate consequence of the laws of supply and demand.
If you need to hire a hotshot in some specialized field and the expected value of that person's economic contribution is greater than the cost of buying out a cofounder, then said cofounder is at the mercy of any personal biases that the hotshot might have. And being a hotshot is absolutely not correlated with any kind of superior moral development. I have met plenty of highly skilled people who were leaders in their field but who were markedly undeveloped in other respects, and indeed I could say the same of myself in some respects.
What I think you and a lot of other posters are missing is the import of her paragraph about how diversity costs; when they were a freewheeling write-the-r-own-rules startup they could afford to blow off or ignore anyone who tried to leverage personal biases such as sexism, ageism, or anything really.
I had missed this, thanks for bringing it to my attention.
She's pointing this out as an example of systematic discrimination - not in the casual but incorrect sense that most people use the term, involving some villainous type whose primary goal is to disenfranchise others, but as an unfortunate consequence of the laws of supply and demand.
I can see how this makes sense, okay, fair point. In other words, a far more subtle type of discrimination based on the circumstances. I probably missed this because the title seemed a bit more straightforward.
As for everything you said about "hotshots", yeah, I agree.
I had missed this, thanks for bringing it to my attention.
She's pointing this out as an example of systematic discrimination - not in the casual but incorrect sense that most people use the term, involving some villainous type whose primary goal is to disenfranchise others, but as an unfortunate consequence of the laws of supply and demand.
I can see how this makes sense, okay, fair point. In other words, a far more subtle type of discrimination based on the circumstances. I probably missed this because the title seemed a bit more straightforward.
As for everything you said about "hotshots", yeah, I agree.
Furthermore, she states that she floated the idea of resigning months earlier, and then tendered her resignation because she decided on her own that this guy flaking in a very unprofessional manner somehow invalidated her leardership. It sounds like her co-founders were angry and upset at the candidate, not her.
I think there could be a lot of truth to what Sheryl Sandberg says about men's self-confidence and sense of entitlement (often to a fault) being a huge factor in the disparity in male/female leadership in tech.
I think there could be a lot of truth to what Sheryl Sandberg says about men's self-confidence and sense of entitlement (often to a fault) being a huge factor in the disparity in male/female leadership in tech.
When you're leading, it doesn't necessarily matter who is at fault. Hiring someone who screws up reflects on the leader. Likewise, being unable to pull in the talent was a problem.
Agreed. I see no evidence in this article of the writer being a woman having anything to do with it. It seems that she didn't herself make that connection until her "coach" suggested it.
In all seriousness, it sounds a lot like he was just trying to get some leverage in negotiations. Claim you've got a better option and pretend to bail, then they come begging you (partially since you led them on so far that bailing so late would put them in a tough place) and you can get a higher salary and better position.
I was expecting this "rock star" to exhibit sexism by promptly joining after he was told he'd be reporting under a make. But...no. He joined after significant alterations to the deal, including a bump in position and salary.
It might be gratifying for the author, but it's kind of irresponsible for her coach (whatever that is...) to claim something without any evidence at all.
We can't just publicize articles claiming we're victims of emotionally loaded, cultural taboos without any hard evidence whatsoever. Consider that if she hadn't explicitly put it in the title or the story itself, this story would not have signalled sexism to readers.