Hang on: but doesn't that mean that we women may arrive in a role with close to total mastery? Why would we not be bored in zip time? Is that realistic? It doesn't feel realistic to me. I cannot remember a time that I have arrived into a job with full mastery.
If this is true, does that explain why we now only stay two years in a role so we achieve mastery then move on? The lure of those constant fresh fields may mean we rarely get bored. But men too are moving every two years or so now. And unless they really are much more clever than we women, they shouldn't be gaining mastery in the same time duration as they are starting from a much lower set of qualifications. Surely? Especially not if we consider the half-century longitudinal study result of men "overrat[ing] their own IQ while women underrate" theirs (Chrobot-Mason et al., 2019, p. 112).
Of course, this is research done in the USA, so it may not hold quite so true of New Zealand. There are fairly significant cultural differences between our two nations (Chhokar et al., 2007).
Further, I am a bit worried about this "60%" and "100%". I have never been a full match for a job that I have applied for, so these numbers seem a bit glib to me. I might have accepted 40% and 80%. But 100%? Curt Rice has also picked up on this, and he went hunting. He found that this claim was based on a conversation between McKinsey and HP which Sheryl Sandberg heard about. Not research. No papers published. This was 'internal' reporting. Rice (2014) suggested that the conversation went something like this:
"McKinsey interviewer: Do you have any special challenges related to recruiting internally to higher-level positions?
"Hewlett-Packard senior executive: Well, as a matter of fact, it’s much more difficult to get women to apply for senior positions than men. It seems like they lack self-confidence. They don’t even think about applying unless they’re 100% confident they’re qualified. The men, if they feel like they’re even 60% there, they go for it"
It seems there is not a warrant for the claim. The claim lacks validity - it seems to not be based on discoverable research data. This brief examination of Ms Sandberg's book raises more questions than it provides answers.
Sam
References:
Chhokar, J. S., Brodbeck, F. C. & House, R. J. (Eds) (2007). Culture and Leadership Across the World: The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Chrobot-Mason, D., Hoobler, J. M. & Burno, J. (2019). Lean In Versus the Literature An Evidence-Based Examination. Academy of Management Perspectives, 33(1), 110-130. https://doi.org/10.5465amp.2016.0156a
Rice, C. (22 April 2014). Anecdata, or how McKinsey’s story became Sheryl Sandberg’s fact. Curt Rice | Science in balance. https://curt-rice.com/2014/04/22/what-happens-when-under-qualified-women-apply-for-jobs-and-why-sheryl-sandberg-and-mckinsey-wrongly-think-we-dont-know/
Sandberg, S. (2013). Lean In: women, work, and the will to lead. Alfred A. Knopf.
No comments :
Post a Comment
Thanks for your feedback. The elves will post it shortly.