A “World Forum” Without Women?
Given the topic of economics from the global perspective, how is it possible that a thought leader gathering could have so few female participants? That’s exactly what Morice Mendoza, editor of Women-omics discusses in his BusinessWeek article on the 2009 World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos. In it, he cites plenty of well-known research about the power of women in organizational leadership and the marketplace, while noting the lack of female perspective at such a grand conversation on global economic issues. Whose fault is it that the Davos event leans so far masculine? Circumstances and traditions too unwieldy to correct, perhaps.
But the circumstance I am most interested in is the framing or language of the gender-balance issue. As I noted in my comment to Morice’s piece:
If stats like these – showing how key women are in terms of business leadership and in the marketplace – have been known for a while (and they have), what does it take to get the traditionally male leadership at WEF, or businesses/organizations in general, to pay attention? Much as we may all wish male vs. female, feminine vs. masculine issues no longer inhibited productive living and business-doing, they do. I think it may be a matter of language/semantics. What if we stopped attributing this need for balance to gender and started talking about it as a need for balanced right and left brain problem solving? For men in traditional businesses or organizations such as WEF, it might feel more compelling to tap “the emerging power consumer” or “the balanced brain leader” if the term for those things wasn’t “women’s” ways.
There is no argument that gender-balanced boards and corporate executive teams will lead to more productive management and growth. But, how we talk about the issue just may need to be “de-genderfied” in order to get everyone interested in the conversation. Just as relationship counselors advise troubled couples via objective case studies of other men and women, rather than pointing a personal finger at who “just doesn’t get it,” so, too, is that lack of personal baggage necessary for fluid and honest discussions of growing the global economy or a single business.
“Women’s ways” may well be what we study and want to integrate throughout more of our processes, but if the “feminine” terminology is inhibiting our success in doing so in very traditionally male-oriented organizations, let’s take a step back. We can get the same things done by focusing on, and providing more education in, everyone’s relational, long term view and connection-making ways of work and leadership. That those things combine to be more commonly a woman’s way of thinking need not be mentioned.
Men and women focused on success for their business or organzational affiliations can no longer deny the power in balancing out the right and left brain in their management and leadership approaches. If you knew your business or organization could take on such a balanced brain challenge and truly engage all involved parties, wouldn’t it be worth leaving “women” or “men” out of it to get the job done?
