Impact of Economic Chaos on Women

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Marie Wilson on October 16, 2008 at 11:37am

From: In Women We Trust: How Wall Street Could Have Avoided Our Economic Meltdown
http://blog.thewhitehouseproject.org/2008/09/24/in-women-we-trust-h...

With the recent ouster of Sallie Krawcheck from Citi, the prostration of Wall Street’s triad of powerful women was a mission completed. The announcement, amid a week of devastating shake-ups in the financial sector, hit a particular nerve: Krawcheck had asked that clients be paid back for Citi’s defective investments - an ethical response to the market’s downward spiral that was appreciated less by higher-ups than it was by clients. Though the details of Krawcheck’s departure are up for speculation, her story echoes the growing cultural narrative concerning our trust of women as leaders versus the support we give them - via the voting booth and board rooms - to lead us from the helm.

According to a Pew study released this August, Americans believe that women far surpass their male counterparts in the quality of their character as leaders. When it comes to honesty, intelligence, compassion, and creativity, Americans contend that women have “the right stuff.” Yet the study also reveals a disjuncture between the public’s trust of women as leaders, and their overall feeling of who makes a better leader. A mere six percent said women made better leaders, while one-fifth of respondents cited men as better leaders overall. As the study says, “Women emerge from this survey a bit like a sports team that racks up better statistics but still loses the game.”

A report to be released this fall by The White House Project’s Corporate Council resonates this finding. Across ten sectors - from business and politics to journalism and film - the report illustrates the persistent disparity between Americans’ high level of trust for women as leaders, and the dismal percentage of women who have been supported in those arenas in their leadership.

Yet the characteristics that Americans attribute to women leaders are the very traits that many would say is sorely lacking - from Wall Street to Capitol Hill. With a proposed $700 billion rescue plan that would make already-suffering American taxpayers foot the bill for corporate capriciousness, it’s near impossible to look at what has happened in the financial sector and not ask whether we would be having such devastation if more women were at the economic steering wheel.

Perhaps none had put it better than Sara Vines, in her humorous take for the The Times of London this week: “No sensible woman I know would have encouraged the selling of 120 percent mortgages to people who could barely afford their grocery bills. Such a think would be laughable, a bit like carrying of XXL condoms around in your pocket.”

Krawcheck, and the rest of her female cohort on Wall Street, seem to be paying the price for what Vines says that women innately do - “stop for a tiny moment to consider the human cost of all this.” In a country where nearly half of retirees expect to outlive their savings, where homeless shelters are brimming with families recently put out by foreclosures, and parents can’t afford to send their children to college - let alone insure their health - the human cost is exactly what we need to be considering.

The difference between public trust in women as leaders versus the ample support of women to take on that leadership is faulty policy, any way you dice it. It’s bad for our bottom line: as investors, business owners, customers, and as taxpayers.

In terms of the current economic meltdown, we would have been wise to take a hint from Sally Helgesen’s book The Female Advantage. Though both genders are oriented toward the big picture, women “relate decisions to their larger effect upon the role of the family, the American education system, the environment, even world peace.” In other words, women would have done the big-picture forecasting that might have saved Wall Street, and the rest of us, from this deepening downward spiral.

I am not an essentialist. I do not think that women, by nature, are endowed with traits that make them more compassionate, more honest, or more apt to think outside of the box. What I do know is that these traits have been largely gleaned by women through their life experiences, leading from the foot of the table. And it is exactly these foot-of-the-table characteristics that we need right now, and have for some time.

The same stale, insular, old-boys-club way of thinking is what got the rest of us into this mess. What we need now are fresh ideas and new perspectives, guided by ethical imperatives and a broader view of what prosperity, responsibility, and accountability really mean for our finances and our politics. Trusting in our nation’s women - and supporting them in their leadership - is the one solution we have yet to try.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Deborah Levine on October 18, 2008 at 2:05pm

Thank you for your reply, Marie. Last year, you and I met in Nashville at a reception for the TN Economic Council on Women, along with former Congresswoman Pat Schroeder. I interviewed Pat for my online magazine, the American Diversity Report, and was struck by the combination of humanity, experience and intelligence that you describe in your blog on women leaders. We were both optimistic about women in leadership, but that optimism was much more sustainable last year.

Today, I am struck by the 8th annual report on Women on Boards and in the Executive Suite coming out of Philadelphia which showed little change in the number of women on the boards of the largest 100 publicly-owned companies in the city since 2004. Further, I am concerned that the size of a major pool of board members, women in the executive suites, also was virtually unchanged since 2004. However, the number of boards with no female members increased.

Most strikingly, this report covered a time period prior to the current economic crisis emerging. I have no doubt that next year's report will be a sobering one. I am particularly concerned that women who would normally strike out on their own when the corporate hierarchy cannot be navigated will be unable to do so. Women-owned businesses will surely suffer as will all small businesses. However, the ability to establish a small business has been a major safety valve for women and I believe they will suffer disproportionately. I welcome statistical and anecdotal analyses involving women executives and business owners over the next year.

Deborah Levine
www.americandiversityreport.com

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Erica Courtney on November 3, 2008 at 8:53am

I think women are pretty creative and since we own more small businesses than men, I believe we will continue to look outside the box for opportunities unseen by most. The recession will hurt many, but if we fail to plan, plan to fail. Business as usual has to change and for this reason, women may be in a better position to show how flexible we can be.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by LLinda S Droge-Blauwkamp on December 16, 2008 at 7:07pm

Deborah,

I did not become a small business owner because the corporate world limited my leadership ability. I could not enter because the corporate foundation is "create a need and fill it" and make a profit.. My foundation is fill the needs, water, food, and friendship. Wealth is an artificial need. And we have been suffering its consequences! Being a leader, means more than leading. It is by meaningfully leading that we create the change we wish to see. Everywhere I look people are devastated because they don't have enough money, whether they do or not, rich or poor. What is enough? Real wealth is to know your own power to be/lead every minute. Real power is to do what you know to be wise. Wisdom is learned day by day. Who do you know that has enough wisdom to lead us out of our systemic wealth creating system? It is polluting the world and we all are perpetuating the mess. Women are not inherently better than men. For those of us who have birthed a child, know the love, the patience, the pain, and the persistance it takes to raise a healthy responsible child. If we want to create a healthy responsible system we need to have the same love, patience, endure the pain and be very persistant. We may first have to answer the question, what is a healthy responsible child. What is a healthy responsible adult? What is a healthy responsible government. What is upward mobility? Do we have healthy responsible adults leading us anywhere? What is leading for real change? What are the real changes we need? I owned a small business, a coffee shop and had to survive in a McDonald, professional, profit making world. I made vegan, vegetarian, raw organic food. Supported local organic agriculture. Supported the peace movement, artist, musicians and free thinkers. I told a local prominent newscaster that I wanted to be interviewed to run for the President's office. He laughed and said he couldn't do that, and I quote, " You think too much". Someone has said that we get the government that we deserve. Maybe instead of having leadership aspirations, we may want to look at how we are leading where we are now. We may want to look at how the past leadership has gotten us into this mess. We may want to look at how our following has brought us here. Real change means really changing!

▶ Reply to This