Picture this. A recruiter is reviewing job applications. There are two applicants who have the same area of expertise, identical levels of experience, and equally great letters of recommendation. One of them is named Jane, and one of them is named John. The recruiter has to decide without meeting them who to hire, who is the most competent and capable.
Research shows that the recruiter is more likely to hire John, just on the basis of his being a John rather than a Jane. This research further suggests that you and I might do the same, whether or not we are a man or woman making the decision.
This largely invisible bias is but one example of what women face in the workforce. How do we deal with these implicit and subtle biases – let alone with the egregious and explicit misogyny that still exists? Some have touted the concept coined by Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, “Lean In” as a solution.
I want to argue here that “Leaning In” is exactly NOT the way to combat bias against women in the workforce or elsewhere. I also want to contrast it with an alternate concept I’ve developed called Precisionism, which I’ve written about here.
Let’s start with Lean In. Sheryl Sandburg parlayed her TED talk on why we have too few women leaders into a book call “Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead”, and then into a Lean In movement. The focus of Lean In is on “… encouraging women to pursue their ambitions, and changing the conversation from what we can’t do to what we can do.” Yet almost immediately upon its release, Lean In was critiqued as “faux feminism” with The Guardian going so far as to refer to Lean In as “an infantilising, reactionary guide for ambitious women.”
Moreover, Bell Hooks in her critique “Dig Deep: Beyond Lean In” argues that Lean In ignores “the concrete systemic obstacles most women face inside the workforce and fails to call for much-needed social change, instead providing women advice on how to become successful within existing conditions.” In this sense, she argues that Sandberg’s stance on gender equality in the workplace is “agreeable to those who wield power in our society – wealthy white men – in a seemingly feminist package….”
One of my favorite quotes on the Lean In ideology is this comment from software engineerKete Heddleston: “Women in tech are the canary in the coal mine. Normally when the canary in the coal mine starts dying you know the environment is toxic and you should get the hell out. Instead, the tech industry is looking at the canary, wondering why it can’t breathe, saying “Lean in, canary. Lean in!” When one canary dies they get a new one because getting more canaries is how you fix the lack of canaries, right? Except the problem is that there isn’t enough oxygen in the coal mine, not that there are too few canaries.”
Sandberg herself acknowledged that she didn’t truly understand the plight of single moms who cannot blithely Lean In, who do not have the extreme economic advantages that she herself enjoys.
Enter Precisionism. The basic premise of Precisionism is that many women possess a deeply-rooted drive for excellence that is different from the way men are socialized to pursue excellence. I call this drive for excellence Precisionism because while it shares some aspects of perfectionism, it does not involve unrealistically high standards or feelings of failure. Instead, a Precisionist assumes that s/he is good enough to strive towards the highest standard of excellence, even if it is never quite reached. A Precisionist has the capacity to go deep, to focus on getting the details right and noticing what others fail to notice. A Precisionist sees patterns that others miss, and draws on intuition to transcend current limitations and think outside the box. A Precisionist also knows that mistakes are an opportunity for growth. A psychologist, Harriet Braiker, got to the heart of this when she wrote: “Striving for excellence motivates you. Striving for perfection is demoralizing.”
Therefore, women should NOT model themselves after predominant, male models of how to succeed, lead, and work effectively. Instead, women should set new standards and capitalize on their unique drive for excellence.
Although Lean In tells women to fight for their seat at the table, the underlying message is that to do so we have to accommodate the status quo. Precisionism in contrast, like the seminal punk rock album ‘Never Mind the Bollocks: Here’s the Sex Pistols’ tells us to disrupt long-held beliefs and to be ready with an open mind for something new. Let’s be ready for new ideas about what makes a person a great leader, powerful, and valuable.
So, ladies, never mind Lean In. It’s precisely the right time for new perspectives on how to take a seat at the table – and to do so by being the ones who set the agenda and lead the conversation.