In the world of corporate feminism, there's a prevailing narrative that women need to "lean in" to succeed. This idea, popularized by Sheryl Sandberg's book of the same name, suggests that women should adopt more traditionally masculine behaviors to climb the corporate ladder. But what if this approach is fundamentally flawed?
Marissa Orr's book "Lean Out" challenges this conventional wisdom, arguing that the solution to gender inequality in the workplace isn't for women to change themselves, but for corporate culture itself to change. Orr, a tech industry veteran with experience at Google and Facebook, offers a fresh perspective on why women aren't reaching the top tiers of corporate America in greater numbers - and why that might not be the problem we think it is.
The Problem with "Leaning In"
Masculine Assertiveness Isn't the Answer
One of the core tenets of the "lean in" philosophy is that women should be more assertive in the workplace. This advice often stems from the observation that men who display assertive behaviors are rewarded, while women who do the same are labeled as "bossy."
Orr argues that this approach is fundamentally misguided. By encouraging women to adopt traditionally masculine behaviors, we're not addressing the root of the problem. Instead, we're perpetuating a system that values these traits above others that might be equally - if not more - valuable in a professional setting.
Consider the "Ban Bossy" campaign launched by Sheryl Sandberg. While it rightly points out the double standard in how assertive behavior is perceived in men versus women, its solution is problematic. Instead of questioning why we celebrate these behaviors in the first place, it simply encourages women to embrace them without fear of negative labels.
This approach fails to recognize that many of the traits traditionally associated with femininity - empathy, patience, collaboration - are incredibly valuable in the workplace. By telling women to suppress these qualities in favor of more aggressive, traditionally masculine behaviors, we're not creating a more equitable workplace. We're simply reinforcing the idea that the masculine way is the right way.
The Leadership Ambition Gap
Corporate feminists often point to what they call the "leadership ambition gap" - the fact that fewer women than men aspire to top-tier positions in companies. They see this as a problem that needs to be solved by encouraging more women to aim for these roles.
However, Orr suggests we need to look at this issue from a different angle. Instead of asking why women aren't aiming for these positions, we should be asking why they might be choosing not to pursue them.
One significant factor is the unequal distribution of domestic labor. Studies show that women, regardless of their professional status, still shoulder a larger share of housework and childcare than men. When faced with the choice between a demanding, high-powered job and a role that allows for more work-life balance, many women are opting for the latter - not because they lack ambition, but because they're making a conscious choice about their priorities.
Instead of pushing women to want what we think they should want, perhaps we should be focusing on creating workplaces that better accommodate the realities of women's lives. This might mean more flexible working conditions, better parental leave policies, or a reevaluation of what "success" looks like in a corporate setting.
The Confidence Myth
Another common piece of advice in corporate feminism is that women need to be more confident. The argument goes that men are more likely to pursue opportunities and ask for promotions because they're more confident in their abilities.
Orr challenges this notion, pointing out that confidence isn't just about outward displays of certainty. True confidence, she argues, is about self-trust - the ability to think, learn, choose, and act. This kind of confidence can manifest in ways that aren't traditionally recognized in corporate settings.
For example, the willingness to ask questions, to admit uncertainty, or to take time to consider decisions are all signs of a deep, authentic confidence. Yet in many corporate environments, these behaviors are seen as weaknesses rather than strengths.
By encouraging women to adopt a more performative, traditionally masculine type of confidence - one that's all about firm handshakes and speaking loudly - we're not actually building true confidence. We're simply teaching women to put on a show, rather than valuing the authentic confidence many women already possess.
The Corporate Culture Problem
Relationships in the Corporate World
One of the ironies Orr points out is how the corporate world views relationships. Outside of work, men are often seen as struggling with emotional connections, while women are praised for their ability to form and maintain meaningful relationships. Yet in the corporate context, this dynamic is flipped on its head.
Corporate advice often tells women they need to network more, to find mentors, to build relationships that will help them advance their careers. This advice implies that men are better at forming these professional relationships, which is why they're more successful in climbing the corporate ladder.
But Orr argues that what passes for "relationships" in the corporate world isn't really about genuine connection at all. In the competitive environment of most businesses, relationships are often purely transactional. They're about what you can get from someone else, not about forming a genuine bond.
This kind of networking actually goes against many women's natural inclinations. Studies have shown that women tend to thrive in collaborative environments and struggle when competition is introduced. Men, on the other hand, become more collaborative when there's something to be gained.
This suggests that the problem isn't that women are bad at networking - it's that the corporate definition of networking is fundamentally at odds with how many women prefer to build relationships. Instead of telling women to change how they connect with others, perhaps we should be questioning whether the corporate approach to relationships is healthy or productive in the first place.
Academic Success vs. Corporate Success
One puzzling aspect of gender inequality in the workplace is that it seems to contradict what we see in education. Women consistently outperform men academically, earning the majority of undergraduate and graduate degrees. So why doesn't this academic success translate to equal representation in corporate leadership?
Orr argues that the conditions for success in academia are vastly different from those in the corporate world. In school, success is largely based on competence and effort. You do the work, you get the grades. It's a relatively straightforward equation.
In the corporate world, however, success is much more subjective. Without clear markers like grades, creating the impression of success can often be more important than actual competence. This system favors those who are good at self-promotion and taking credit - traits that are more often encouraged in men than in women.
Orr points to the example of orchestras in the United States as a model for how focusing on actual performance rather than impression can lead to greater gender equality. When orchestras began conducting blind auditions, with musicians playing behind a screen, the number of women selected increased dramatically. This shows that when we remove subjective impressions from the equation and focus solely on competence, many of the gender disparities we see in the workplace begin to disappear.
The Problem with Power
Another key issue Orr identifies is how power is conceptualized and distributed in the corporate world. The traditional corporate ladder is all about accumulating more power and authority as you climb. But what if this isn't what everyone - or even most people - actually want?
Orr points out that there are two types of power: authority and influence. Authority is the traditional top-down power structure, where those at the top give orders and those below follow them. Influence, on the other hand, is the ability to effect change without relying on explicit authority.
Studies have shown that men tend to be more comfortable with and attracted to positions of authority, while women often prefer to use influence to get things done. Yet in most corporate structures, it's authority that's rewarded and sought after.
This preference for authority over influence can create a system where women are less likely to pursue leadership positions - not because they lack ambition, but because the type of power on offer doesn't align with their values or preferred way of working.
Instead of trying to change women to make them more comfortable with authority, Orr suggests we should be rethinking how power is distributed in the workplace. Perhaps a model that values influence as much as authority would not only be more appealing to women but could also lead to more effective and collaborative work environments.
The Path Forward
Changing Conditions, Not Behaviors
One of the key arguments Orr makes is that if we want to achieve gender equality in the workplace, we need to focus on changing conditions rather than trying to change women's behavior.
She uses the example of organ donation in Denmark to illustrate this point. Denmark dramatically increased its organ donation rates not by trying to convince people to become donors, but by changing the default option on driver's license forms. Instead of having to opt in to be a donor, people now have to opt out if they don't want to be one. This simple change in conditions led to a massive increase in donor rates.
Orr contrasts this with efforts to combat obesity in the United States, which have largely focused on education and encouraging individuals to change their behavior. Despite these efforts, obesity rates have continued to rise.
The lesson here is that it's often more effective to change the environment people operate in rather than trying to change people themselves. Applied to the workplace, this means that instead of telling women to lean in, speak up, or be more confident, we should be looking at how we can change corporate structures and cultures to be more accommodating to diverse working styles and life circumstances.
Rethinking Corporate Structures
So what might these changes look like? Orr offers several suggestions:
Redefine success: Instead of measuring success solely by how high someone climbs on the corporate ladder, we should recognize and reward different types of contributions.
Value influence as much as authority: Create leadership positions that rely more on influence and collaboration rather than top-down authority.
Offer flexible rewards: Recognize that not everyone is motivated by the same things. Some people might value flexibility or work-life balance more than a prestigious title or corner office.
Promote psychological safety: Create environments where all employees feel safe to express themselves and their ideas without fear of ridicule or retribution.
Address work-life balance: Implement policies that make it easier for all employees to balance their work and personal lives, such as flexible working hours, robust parental leave, or on-site childcare.
Focus on performance, not impression: Implement more objective performance metrics, similar to the blind auditions used by orchestras.
The key is to create workplaces that allow all employees - regardless of gender - to thrive by playing to their unique strengths and working in ways that align with their values and life circumstances.
Conclusion
"Lean Out" presents a compelling challenge to the dominant narrative in corporate feminism. Orr argues that the solution to gender inequality in the workplace isn't for women to change themselves to fit into existing corporate structures. Instead, it's time for those structures themselves to change.
By valuing traditionally feminine traits as much as masculine ones, by recognizing that there are many paths to success and leadership, and by creating workplaces that accommodate diverse working styles and life circumstances, we can create more equitable and effective work environments for everyone.
Orr's book is a call to action - not for women to lean in, but for corporations to lean out. It's time to create workplaces that value all types of contributions, that recognize the importance of work-life balance, and that allow all employees to bring their authentic selves to work.
The path to true gender equality in the workplace doesn't lie in teaching women to act more like men. It lies in reimagining what success looks like, redefining power, and creating corporate cultures that value diversity in all its forms. Only then can we create workplaces where everyone - regardless of gender - has the opportunity to thrive.
Key Takeaways
Question the "lean in" philosophy: The idea that women need to adopt more masculine behaviors to succeed in the workplace is fundamentally flawed and reinforces harmful gender stereotypes.
Recognize the value of feminine traits: Qualities like empathy, collaboration, and relationship-building are incredibly valuable in the workplace and should be recognized as such.
Understand the leadership ambition gap: Instead of pushing all women to aim for top leadership positions, we should question why these positions might not be appealing and work to create more diverse paths to success.
Redefine confidence: True confidence isn't about being loud or assertive; it's about self-trust and the ability to think, learn, and act authentically.
Rethink corporate relationships: The transactional nature of many corporate relationships goes against how many women prefer to build connections. We should question whether this approach is truly effective.
Address the disconnect between academic and corporate success: The skills that lead to success in school often don't translate to the corporate world. We need to create workplaces that value competence over impression management.
Recognize different types of power: Not everyone is motivated by traditional forms of authority. We should create leadership roles that value influence as much as top-down power.
Focus on changing conditions, not behaviors: Instead of trying to change women to fit into existing structures, we should change those structures to be more accommodating to diverse working styles and life circumstances.
Promote psychological safety: Create environments where all employees feel safe to express themselves and their ideas without fear of ridicule or retribution.
Prioritize work-life balance: Implement policies that make it easier for all employees to balance their work and personal lives, recognizing that this balance looks different for different people.
Final Thoughts
"Lean Out" offers a refreshing and much-needed perspective in the ongoing conversation about gender equality in the workplace. By challenging the dominant "lean in" narrative, Orr opens up new possibilities for how we might address this persistent issue.
The book's central argument - that we need to change workplaces rather than women - is both simple and revolutionary. It shifts the burden of change from individual women to the structures and cultures that have long privileged traditionally masculine traits and working styles.
Orr's insights are particularly valuable because they come from her own experiences in the tech industry, a field known for its gender disparities. Her firsthand knowledge of the challenges women face in corporate America lends credibility to her arguments and proposed solutions.
However, it's important to note that while "Lean Out" offers a compelling critique of corporate feminism, it's not a comprehensive solution to workplace gender inequality. There are many complex factors at play, including societal expectations, unconscious biases, and deeply ingrained cultural norms that will take time and effort to change.
Nevertheless, "Lean Out" provides a crucial starting point for reimagining what equitable workplaces could look like. By valuing diverse working styles, redefining success, and creating environments where all employees can thrive, we can move towards workplaces that are not only more equitable but also more effective and innovative.
Ultimately, "Lean Out" is a call to action for both individuals and organizations. It challenges us to question our assumptions about what it means to be successful in the corporate world and to imagine new ways of working that benefit everyone. Whether you're a business leader looking to create a more inclusive workplace, or an individual navigating your own career path, "Lean Out" offers valuable insights and a fresh perspective on how we can create more equitable and fulfilling work environments for all.