And what does women’s work mean?
A few weeks ago, I wrote a post about the struggles of balancing work and life – especially for those of us in the nonprofit world.
Many of you read it, shared it, commented, or sent me email messages. I’m so grateful to everyone. Because stress is a very real problem. And it’s getting in the way of our organizations’ missions.
I don’t want to leave the conversation with that one post.
It would be unfair to ask for your input and then just move on. And by myself, I can’t achieve much.
So please keep commenting and sharing your ideas.
Women’s work: stress and your career
The New York Times article from 2015 that inspired my original post was about the problem of stress in our lives.
The author suggested as a society, we’ve separated caregiving and work. Work we prioritize, caregiving is sidelined. And the need for both in our lives puts a great deal of pressure on the people who are caregivers – mainly women.
It’s also holding women back. The need to juggle so many responsibilities at work and home becomes impossible.
We know women are the vast majority of nonprofit workers.
So why do men still fill most of the leadership roles – particularly in larger organizations?
Then I found Gender Trouble at Nonprofits, a piece Dan Pallotta wrote for The Daily Beast in 2009 (updated in 2017). One paragraph from the original version whacked me in the face.
“Charities are not allowed to use the same tools as business because society subconsciously regards it as female, and discriminates against it the same way it has historically discriminated against women. Charity is subservient. The for-profit sector heads to the office every day to do the real business of the world, while charity stays at home and dabbles in idealism and sentiment. Even the governing structure of charity is patriarchal; business people direct nonprofit staff—seven in 10 of whom are women—from the perches of their board seats.”
Wow.
A leadership problem – understanding women’s work
Here’s the irony of it all, though. Survey people about the most important leadership qualities? They’re the ones most associated with women.
To build a strong organization, we need diversity. That’s not lip service, that’s a fact. Surveys point to a need for the qualities women score more highly on. These traits include “expressive”, “plans for the future”, “reasonable”, “loyal”, “flexible” and “patient”.
An article in the Harvard Business Review brings up second-generation bias – unconscious, unintentional, but still present.
It’s a trap for women: men who score high on likeability are also seen as more competent leaders. For men, the two leadership traits are complementary. Women are seen as less competent if they’re more likable.
This infographic from TCC Group makes the problem of gender diversity in our sector quite clear.
Double whammy?
So nonprofits must work twice as hard to care for the needs of the world. And as Pallotta says, they’re denied many of the tools used in the for-profit world. Somehow, we’re supposed to innovate without investment. Care for people while not caring for our employees.
Our work is seen as less important – even though it’s desperately needed. (And not likely to be done by the private sector.)
And within our sector, women are still fighting for a place at the grown-ups’ table.
So what now?
We can mentor. And push for flexibility. We can be conscious of bias when we hire or promote. We can model kinder, gentler organizations.
But to create real change we need new leadership.
We need leaders with the qualities usually identified with women. We need the loudest voices to be those who value empathy, vulnerability, loyalty, flexibility, and patience.
This isn’t only about what’s just.
It’s about what’s best for the sector and for the world. It’s about effectiveness.
We’re killing ourselves to save the world. Doesn’t that mean we’re doing it wrong?
Please share your thoughts – we need them!
Mary – thanks for continuing to dive into this issue. A colleague recently noted that the nonprofit sector is a field “dominated by women” and I said, “No… it is POPULATED by women, but dominated by men.”
Personally, I’ve felt that because there are positions of “giver” and “supplicant” in our sector and women are often found in those “asking, seeking, have-not” positions. And this is just digging into gender, not even touching other forms of dominant power, like race and wealth.
Please keep this conversation going! This is why Rory and I started our discussion group, Ms.Rupt. And this is a perfect topic for 2016!
Thank you, Beth! Very good insight there.
And yes, I don’t mean to imply that gender is the only issue. It’s surely not.
But it is amazing that there are so many women – in our sector, in our countries – and so few are at the top.
Long past time that stopped!
Hi Mary,
I have been thinking seriously about this topic over the last year and am thrilled and oh so happy to see it in writing. Not new news of course, but it hasn’t been written about, at least much.
I’ve witnessed women playing small in fundraising for years as a consultant and early in my career as a nonprofit executive. Oddly, I haven’t been able to name it until recently.
I facilitate women’s groups at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, and can say that playing small is true whether you’re working as a C-suite executive at a Fortune 500 company or an ED of a nonprofit with a $500K budget.
Thanks for stepping out Mary. I’m right behind you.
Thank you, Tricia. That means a lot. We are all in this together!
Mary, the response you’re getting reflects the passion and the eloquence you bring to the issue (as well as the importance of the issue itself. It’s vital for the sector. It’s crucial for women, and for gender equality. And men who count “empathy, vulnerability, flexibility, and patience” among our better qualities, what you’re writing is a step toward a better world. I hope you can keep the conversation going until everyone is talking about these issues…and doing something about them. Thank you!
And “loyalty” too. That’s what I get for trying to answer you on my cell phone: I leave out maybe the most important quality!
Thank you so much, Dennis. I completely agree.
Beautifully written, Mary! Thank you. My favorite sentiment from your piece is – caring for people without caring for employees. How can we expect nonprofit staff to take care of others without being able to care for themselves?
What are your recommendations for next steps? I would suggest: Awareness is a great first step. Money is probably next. I would encourage all nonprofit leaders – staff and boards to fight for pay equality and increases for female staff in the coming year. Let’s see if we can’t get a campaign going to get women leaders and their staff paid – not only fairly, but well!
Thanks again for another great post.
Thank you, Amy!
Yes, I agree that fair pay is a great first step. To get there may mean continuing to push for “overhead” as central to effectiveness. AND that investing in fundraising will do so much for an organization – better than the bank!
There are people who will be moved by fairness. There are others for whom the case needs to be cold, hard, effectiveness. Keep losing your best staff? You can fix that. Need better donor connections? You can fix that. Retain your good employees and create a more diverse workforce. Don’t fear flexibility, look at results.
Thank you, Amy.
I’d never actually considered how gendered volunteering is, perhaps its to do with historically normalised notions of earning?
I’m glad I’m apparently very much in-touch with my feminine-side. While you’ve perfectly drawn attention to the gender problem in the nonprofit sector, I’d like to suggest that this is actually a symptom of a deeper, broader cultural problem at nonprofit institutions and, for that matter, society in general.
Mary, thank you for providing a forum to discuss nonprofit workplace issues. Other than preaching to the choir, what can we all do to affect real change?
Hi Michael,
Well, I do think it’s impossible to solve the bigger problem without dealing with the gender disparity (and other problems like it). When 70-80% of your workforce is not represented at the top, looking for change is hard.
As I mentioned in this post, it’s a leadership problem. That means staff leadership, board leadership and funders. I made some suggestions in the first post (https://mcahalane.com/your-work-or-a-life-a-painful-choice-no-one-should-have-to-make/). But I think some of the solutions for stress are the same as the way to deal with our gender gap. It’s changing the model and valuing different things.
It’s enough funding to pay people well, offer them opportunities to educate themselves so they can bring back innovation, create flexibility in schedules and worry about retaining employees as well as donors.
And what we measure is important. For a long time, funders have wanted to know about diversity. Maybe we need better measurements. And a way to measure staff stress. And we need to look more at effectiveness and less at the clock or calendar.
What do you think?
Mary, I agree with everything you’ve said. However, those are mostly outcomes that folks have aspired to for decades. While I’m concerned about the “what,” I’m especially concerned about the “how.” How do we actually achieve these things? How do we radically transform an entrenched power structure?
For example, one possible answer — I’m brainstorming not advocating — would be for nonprofit employees to unionize. Assuming there is reasonable consensus on what we want to achieve, how do we go about achieving it at long last?
That’s the big question, isn’t it? How do you start a movement?
Wonder if there’s something to be learned by the unionizing process?
But the problems in NP sector aren’t unique to us. So it’s really a societal problem. And we’ve been trying, with some but not enough success, to change it.
Wish I had all the answers – but I think all of us being aware and talking about it does help change attitudes. And that helps change reality.
Our generation(s) have been doing a fairly good job, particularly recently, of defining the problems. While we might be coming up short on solutions, we’ve still done important work. I’m hopeful that substantive change might come as Millennials gain power and influence in the workplace. For example, there’s a growing movement of people who do not even identify with a particular gender; they don’t see him or her, only they. I’ll be writing about that in one of my posts in the near future.
While we might not be around to benefit from all the changes that will come to the workplace, perhaps we will be able to one day enjoy the improvements from our rocking chairs.