Ask many Yugoslavs what they think of Madeline Albright (who bombed them), and many citizens what they think of Thatcher (who is the reason for Blair staying in so long) and they'd say I'm not so sure.
And as anyone who has worked in many an all female workplace, they would say I'm defintely not so sure! I have heard this a huge number of times from mostly women, who say it's just too nasty!
Now I've also worked in the macho culture of Investment Banks, and let me say that sometimes that is even worse.
So I think we can agree, a balanced harmonious creative workforce is the optimum organization where none of either genders more robust attributes is on display is probably best. I think 50/50 is unrealistic as the genders tend to favour certain industries, but some portion of each gender and a balanced culture, may be wise.
As a broad generalisation but I certainly think we need to redesign workplaces to make them better places for women (more flexible & creative). And I think we need to be more about balancing flexible, creative cultures with organizing frameworks. I think Emma's article leads into the innovation debate, on redesigning the workforce, a debate that will occur vehemently when the next recession hits, and the inevitable finger-pointing begins.
If you don't believe that Recessions occur, i draw your attention to similar comments made in the 1920s before the Depression.
But we certainly don't need to lower men to raise women. Large organisations need to look realistically at what would attract more women into workplaces, and solve some of our labour shortage problems. Child care needs to be realistically addressed, for example. Creches at work are a good idea for banks/insurance, and would attract women in their droves.
We need some innovation that encompasses our needs as humans, not just more rhetoric. And I think the women are better than men argument, is old, tired and worn out. As Emma says, it really is pointless.
But also, the same old male role rot: if some of the male stereotypes floating around these days on TV - dumb, hopeless, useless, can't find pants were applied to women there would be an outcry.
We can say a more informed approach to starting with addressing the differences between the genders in a positive and supportive way would be a wise start. After all why do 80% of women shop, and 80% men watch sport if we are 'interchangeable'? There are differences, but it doesn't need to be a slanging match.
We need a more informed innovative debate. And that's not had by saying the world would be a better place if either men or women ran the world. To say so is just more Fried Chicken innovation -- useless, pointless and tasteless.
Ciao for now,
Christopher
Christopher as a speaker here | Full Bio here
