Last week, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Princeton Professor extraordinaire and former State Department Policy Director, took a break from writing about Syria and US-Mexican relations to write a sincere and heart-felt article in The Atlantic lamenting the reality that as women move into powerful positions – the kind that demand “no life” of whoever takes them regardless of gender – “having it all” becomes impossible. She questions whether we’ve sold Gen-Y women a load of bunk with the “you can have it all” claim. The article, entitled “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All,” also gently takes Sheryl Sandberg (COO, Facebook) to task for encouraging young women to lean in and go for the top spots as though if they don’t it’s a bad thing (as expressed most clearly in her TED talk and Barnard graduation speech last year.
I read Slaughter’s article and, other than being glad that she had voiced her frustrations so clearly and honestly, didn’t think much of it. I tweeted it out and forgot about it. But the internet buzz since the article posted has been pretty impressive so I took another look and probed my reaction more deeply. Upon reflection, I realize that I have much the same ambivalence to Slaughter’s approach that I first felt to Sandberg’s call to arms – because in both women’s contributions to the feminist dialog, they fail to call out the personal acts of power available to women facing the tough choices of managing work-life conundrum some call “balance” (I call it baloney). In this sense, I think they are unconsciously contributing to the powerlessness many women feel when it comes to thinking about “having it all.”
Where Slaughter and Sandberg “Have It All” Right
As research demonstrates women face extra burdens when it comes to making it to the top, and the challenges come in many forms: public perception, social support and our own challenges in personal confidence. There’s no question that women in leadership are good leaders and good for business, but based on the dismal statistics of women in actual leadership positions, this data by itself isn’t persuading organizations to find ways to prepare and promote women any more than it’s convincing women to fight past the cultural hurdles in large numbers.
In fact, many women are leaving corporate America when they reach the mid-management ranks – not just because it’s so hard to stay in, but because there is so much potential joy and power to be found outside the confining walls of corporate thinking.
Where They “Have It All” Wrong
And this is where both of these accomplished ladies – and many others in this debate – have it all wrong. They are stuck in the debate as it was framed by our mothers’ feminist movement. To them, “having it all” seems to mean achieving the same kind of power our fathers valued (wealth, hierarchical title and authority as recognized and bestowed by a patriarchal society) and the same personal satisfaction our mother’s valued (raising healthy balanced children and keeping a warm and inviting home as recognized and utilized by family and friends). All at once. With the full support of our society, culture and family. With little conflict and less mess.
Life isn’t like that now and it never was – even for our fathers when they were running the world. Achieving that level of power and satisfaction at home and the office generally takes a team – a woman and man working together – regardless of how they split up the duties.
If you read that description of “having it all” above, you’ll notice an intentional omission, which is the happiness of the woman on the see-saw herself (or man!)
Increasingly, to many women – especially younger women – this is what counts most: happiness and satisfaction with the life you choose to build. As one 30-something I know who successfully dumped the corporate life for an entrepreneurial dream put it, “Why should I hang out and work for “the man” who doesn’t appreciate me when I can go out on my own, have more fun and make more money?”
The act of choice is an act of power. If you believe you have no choice, then you believe you have no power.
What I would like to hear from the Slaughters and Sandbergs of the world is a celebration of their choices, and the choices of other women who choose differently. In our choices we cobble together our own unique work-life patchwork of experiences. This is where we find our power and where we find our strength. In our choices we learn to appreciate all kinds of power and we become capable of wielding power in organizations even more effectively, for the benefit of the organization and the people in it.
The Can’t-Get-There-From-Here Flaw in Slaughter’s Argument
As I said above, I really honor Slaughter for putting herself out there so honestly. I can imagine her personal struggle and challenge as a senior government official focused on international policy affairs. I live in DC; I’m married to an international government policy expert and my neighbors have been ambassadors, White House staffers and Supreme Court justices. What happened to Slaughter happens to men and women here all the time. Being a powerful government appointee is harder than being a corporate big-wig in my opinion and Slaughter jumped into a situation where any career diplomat will tell you that work-life balance in the sense we can know it in academia and business simply isn’t an option. That’s part of the price of that kind of power, and men pay that price as dearly, often and devastatingly as women. But as women, we notice it more. It’s less “normal” and so we can see and lament the tragic personal cost more clearly. I’m very glad that Slaughter swallowed hard and showed the world the personal cost of public service.
But I take issue with her attempt at remedy. In her closing paragraph she calls for the elevation for women at the top to be the solution to our challenge. “The best hope for improving the lot of all women…is to close the leadership gap. Only when women wield power in sufficient numbers will we create a society that genuinely works for all women. That will be a society that works for everyone.”
I agree that a society that works for women will work for everyone, but to me she’s got her logic backwards. If her personal experience teaches me anything it teaches me that the women that fight their way to the top of a broken system risk becoming broken in the process.
Thankfully, Slaughter herself gave two good years of public service to her country and switched out before she and her family broke, and for this I honor her and celebrate her choices as acts of power. She’s done a valuable service to her country, is investing in her family and still teaching and thinking in ways that serve her students and the public dialog on important subjects. To me she did not fail to have it all, she had it all and then some!
When Slaughter, Sandberg – and every other woman and man inside and outside the system – can own this power they have to choose how to spend their energy, and talk about it in powerful ways that honor people’s choices, then we’ll begin to build a culture that honors, supports and encourages the “balance of powers” needed at the top. Then we’ll celebrate the women leaving middle management to “have it all their way,” as heroines, and we’ll strategize organizationally on how to keep that energy and talent in our leadership stream. Then we’ll build a culture that honors women and sees them more clearly as leaders. Then women will rise naturally into leadership and continue to create this system that works for everyone.
By owning our power of choice, and speaking of it as power, I believe that as a woman you can begin to fix the system no matter where you are today, right now. There is no need for us to be elected King to begin. When the Slaughters and Sandbergs of the world – who have the power and broad reach of their voice – begin to do this, many more will learn how.
I look forward to that day, and am personally working to bring it about.
What’s your experience and perspective? How do you experience the work-life balance of power? Do you think we’re selling ourselves a bunch of bunk by believing we can have it all? Share your thoughts in comments.
I started InPower Women to rewrite the feminist narrative on women and power. Here we favor InPowerment over empowerment, we provide resources for you to learn more about your own power and we activate The Woman Effect every day. I also write for Smartbrief on Leadership & The National Journal. Follow me! (I follow back) LinkedIn Google+ Twitter RSS
Have a Kindle? Follow This Blog!
Excellent! Excellent! Excellent! Thank you Dana – couldn’t agree more.
Thanks, Lynn. This is one of those arguments that makes me sad because it’s such a lost opportunity to be learning to USE the power we’ve obtained over the past 50 years (which some might argue we had all along but is more available to us now than ever before!)
I couldn’t agree more with Dana and thank you Lynn for posting.
All the best.
I agree. We all have to make our choices, and none of us “has it all.” See my post yesterday. http://sararickover.blogspot.com/2012/06/no-one-has-it-all-we-all-make-choices.html
Thanks, Sara. And thanks for your post and linking it here. Our personal experiences are similar. Thanks for stopping by!
Beautifully said!
Thank you Rhonda! Really appreciate your energy here:)
Dear Dana. You have made some excellent points about the recent articles from Anne-Marie Slaughter and Sheryl Sanberg and I agree that your comment “The act of choice is an act of power” is a great approach. In my email to Anne-Marie Slaughter this week, I highlighted the importance of living your real truth in life rather than deceiving ourselves. This comes down to each and everyone one of us determining what are the right choices for us in accordance with our own definitions of success. Through this we can “be the change we want to see” I believe when women exercise these choices and apply this new approach to some of the big opportunities we are facing globally, recognition of women as leaders will follow.
Regards, Geoff
Thanks, Geoff. We agree that women are having a big impact on some of the things that matter most globally. I think Ms. Slaughter’s experience at the State Dept is a perfect example of that and I hope that the majority of the time that’s how she sees it. I’m disappointed that the blast she put into the world about her experience was so sad because it makes it easier for the rest of us to see the sad version of the choices we make. And the version we choose is the version that lives most loudly around us.
Thank you for your comments Dana. Choices that are beyond our own world view are very important and through this we can define what success means to us.
I think this is absolutely right! As a former BigLaw associate, I eventually realized that “the prize” we were all theoretically fighting for (partnership) really wasn’t worth having. So I quit!
More here, in an oddly prescient post I did a few days before the Atlantic article was published: http://thegirlsguidetolawschool.com/06/stop-telling-me-to-play-golf-enough-already/.
Hi Alison. A great article with a key message about being your true self that is most important. If you would like a copy of an article I wrote on this topic “Discover your true self”, please let me know
Regards, Geoff
Hi Alison – Thanks so much for your comment and leaving your link here. Very well said about golf and everything. Also presciently, I’m writing a similar post that I’ve been brewing on fora long time, pleading with the “women’s empowerment movement” to stop the high-heels marketing to us. It’s not helping us get ahead and I’ve become convinced it’s helping us stay behind. Thanks for reading and commenting. Are you on twitter? I’d love to follow you there.
I appreciate your view on the debate – particularly “The act of choice is an act of power”. I believe that individual choices are a vital part of this conversation. I also agree that being “at the top” of a broken system isn’t “the answer”.
I do have concerns that if women are not in positions of power, not shaping the choices that affect government, business, schools and policy — what choices will the next generation of women see for themselves?
The “broken system” influences how girls see themselves and the individual choices they believe are available to them. In the 1980′s my high school guidance counselor told me a I had two options – find a husband or go to Secretarial school. I didn’t believe him, but I’m sure many of my female classmates did.
Somehow we have to change the system as we celebrate the individual acts of power.
Jill you made some great comments. Our young generation are our hope for the future and through this we will create a foundation for future generations. We need leaders who can identify this opportunity and bring about change on a global scale. Please see the following example of a young New Zealand girl who is creating change:- http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/our-future/7143974/Wellington-pupil-I-m-here-to-fight-for-my-future
Hi Jill. I share your concern on both ends of this debate. If women don’t get into power we can’t fully change the system but I am dedicated personally to helping women achieve power authentically and by being more and more themselves because I believe that these are the women that will truly change the world. I don’t worry that we won’t because I KNOW that women are full of ambition and the drive to achieve and change things for the better. I believe that when we start living that power more at every stage of our lives we achieve more all the way along. Seen this way, every choice every one of us make and affirm as an act of power becomes a model for the younger generation whether or not we use those choices to climb to the top or not. The key is to demonstrate choice and celebrate it in others. If young women see that and believe that their own inner compass holds the key to their power they’ll choose correctly. Even a broken system cannot break a whole woman. I was lucky to have a high school counselor (a woman) that saw promise in me and helped me believe I could achieve alot, even though I didn’t know what that was at the time. Every adult that believes girls can achieve is a healing of the broken system. Thanks so much for your comment here and for helping healing the broken system.
Dana, thank you for your perspective. Ms. Slaughter’s article struck a cord with me and many of my close friends who are “powerful” as you define it, raising wonderful healthy children and working in challenging and fulfilling jobs. That said, she is correct about the high-profile public position in Washington. I served for a year in the Obama Administration as the chief of staff to the Deputy Secretary at HUD. Lucky for me, I had worked for the Deputy Secretary for 12 years while he was in his former role as King County Execuitive. I had a fabulous year in DC with my 7 year old while my poor husband commuted back and froth from Seattle evert two weeks. I was challenged beyond my imagination and worked harder than I had in years but it was worth it. I committed to a year and my husband held me to it. I returned to a great job in Seattle that I would not have had the confidence to take before my HUD experience. Interestingly, my boss, the Deputy Secretary, also returned to Seattle and his family a year later. So, yes, we are empowered to make choices and sacrifices but the real loser is the federal government because the work ethic and expectations are unrealistic and limit who can and will join the Administration. Some of the most talented and dedicated political appointees I met chose not to stay very long, especially those of us from the West. This leaves the DC politicos as the dominate pool of appointees. Having a strong geographic balance and the diversity of experience, I believe, will make for better public policy in the long run.
Maura – Thanks for leaving your experience here. I agree with you that public service is a particularly challenging environment to achieve any kind of work-life life. You’re also right that our form of government doesn’t make it easy on anyone. We could have an extensive discussion about the plusses and minuses of political appointments and how they’ve changed in recent years. Diversity of experience is important, as is a way to manage the turmoil that that brings through our political cycles. I think the systematic deterioration of the SES service over the past decades has made this even more challenging for the government’s smooth functioning and for the appointees who come in and have less senior support than they used to. I particularly like, however, the way you speak of your experience in powerful terms – as a series of choices that you AND YOUR HUSBAND made to serve our country, your family and your career. No, it’s not perfect, but that’s not really the point. Perfection is only possible when we accept what is for what it is and work to find moments of perfection in an imperfect world. Thanks for sharing your experience. In the tension between things we care deeply about we find our power and the strength to make things better.
Thanks Dana,
Your simply put and balanced assessment expressing a clear disagreement is an example of clarity which should be emulated by more of us more often.
…and, about a subject that is very important to many on the planet – both male and female..
JOSEPH
Thanks for your comment, Joseph. I firmly believe this isn’t really a women’s issue. Every successful PERSON I know has a network and partnership supporting them and more often than not it includes both sexes! Thanks for stopping by!
Dear Dana,
thanks for writing this, truly. but i worry that even after you have read the article twice my message is not coming through. I have a whole section called “Rediscovering the Pursuit of Happiness” in which I say it is not just that I COULDN’T stay in government but that I didn’t WANT to, precisely because i didn’t want to miss the cooky ups and downs and simple pleasures of family life for the remaining five years that my kids are still going to be at home. I call exactly for what you call for above at the end of my piece — that it’s time to REDEFINE what we want and stand up for it and for all women’s choices. Pse read my response on The Atlantic website, where i explain what i meant by “having it all” and why i would not (and will not) use the term going forward. I like your point re “owning your choices as an act of power” — but that is exactly what i was trying to do by going public with my choices and standing up for them not just as necessary but desired. I want there to be many different role models for women re how to combine careers and children however they choose to. But for those who do have the ambition to make it to the top of their profession, they will need more flexibility and elongation of time frames; for many other women, they need above all respect and validation of their choices.
Best,
AM
Anne-Marie:
I’m honored that you’ve added your voice here on my blog. I read your response and totally agree with your call for stopping the powerless language we tend to use around this (“mommy” adjectives, having it all). I personally call it “work-life baloney” for the same reason. Our language defines us.
This debate you’ve sparked needs to happen and I want to thank you and tell you personally how much I admire you for having the courage to spark it and deal with the outflow of tweets, blogs, interviews etc. I think the debate is/was going to happen no matter what your article actually said and now you know the challenges of speaking on a large stage… no matter what you actually say, people read into it what they want. I’ll own my choice to read some of your language as less powerful than you might have intended it. I did read the section about redefining happiness and enlisting men and shaking your finger at S. Sandberg for implying shame to women who don’t go for the gold, and I agree with all of it.
My point is very small and intended to be very precise – my blog is simply a call to you who have the large stage to stand up for the choices you make as powerfully as possible and honor the choices themselves because that is the thing the young women (all of us, really) need to hear to help them determine what “having what matters” will be in their life. The moment we honor the choices we’re already making is the moment, we have the power to make different choices without guilt or shame that diminishes us. I agree with you that S Sandberg errs on the side of devaluing the choices you and I and many other powerful women make when faced with “up or happiness” choices.
In your responsive video and article I love how you’re reshaping your message around “the pool” – because that’s a much more realistic narrative on this. To read most media articles, you’d think that the success of the entire women’s movement lies in the choices of each one of us individually. While maybe that was more true for the generation before us, it’s becoming less true now and the success of our society and economy now rides on the choices that many of us make, and those of our men too (I’m all about partnership). And as positive psychology is teaching us, happiness matters – to us individually and to our economy because it makes us more productive! The talent pools you speak of are really about a mixing place of women and men and our goal is to make the pools more equal – both for high-level jobs and for taking-care-of-the-kids/life. As we value people’s choices, we also learn to value the MEN’s choices who choose to take the flexible job.
I will say that I think you got caught in the perfect storm to spark this debate. You experienced both an inflexible job (no matter how good your boss is, some jobs just don’t have much/any flexibility) and challenging kid stuff (middle school boys… been there, done that, whew!) at the same time. But here’s what you had that many women in that position don’t – you KNOW what it’s like to do meaningful work with a flexible schedule. That knowledge infected you with very sharp vision and the ability to see things that many others can’t. Further, your position and connections gave you the opportunity to share that conundrum on a very public and high profile stage. You also have the courage to BE in the eye of the storm. You chose to be there and I honor you for that choice more than anything else.
BTW – one last thought. The way media headlines work, it’s very hard to use powerful language to have this discussion. Much as we’d like to stop using “having it all”, it gets headlines (just like “mommy wars”). Katie Couric’s question about whether your article would make younger women opt-out is just stupid – though eye-catching on a web site – and devalues the intelligence of younger women by intimating that they are so simple they will think they have an either/or choice. Using the headline language that will catch people’s attention often forces us to say things we don’t mean precisely. And I admit I did that in the title of my article too. The truth is that I value and honor what you’re saying, feeling and doing and I made an effort in the content of my post to get that across as well.
This is a debate, not a cat-fight, and I very deeply appreciate your participation and willingness to be the lightning rod.
Deepest Thanks,
DT