04 August 2016
Is Women’s Ambition Different From Men’s?
Should this be a taboo subject?
by Lynda Goetz
Last week, Kevin Roberts, chairman of Saatchi and Saatchi (the global communications and advertising agency now based in New York and with 140 offices in 76 countries) and head coach at the parent company, Publicis Group, took enforced leave of absence following his remarks about women’s apparent lack of conventional ambition. Yesterday he resigned. Mr Roberts, who is 66, was due to retire next May, but has brought forward his retirement following the furore over his comments.
What exactly did Mr Roberts say to cause such a media frenzy and lead to his early retirement? In an interview with Lara O’Reilly in Business Insider on July 29th he put forward his view that within the advertising industry, unlike say financial services, there was not a problem with gender or with the lack of women in leadership roles. When asked about the fact that although almost half of the advertising industry is made up of women, but only 11.5% of creative directors are female, his view was that management were perhaps missing the point. He went on to elucidate as follows: “Their ambition is not a vertical ambition; it’s this intrinsic, circular ambition to be happy. So they say ‘We’re not judging ourselves by those idiotic dinosaur standards that you men judge yourselves by’.” He felt that perhaps agencies should look at things in a different light and that millennials – both men and women – wanted connectivity and collaboration more than wealth, power and fame. From this standpoint, many simply “want to be happy and do great work” rather than “holding ambitions to progress into the higher echelons of the C-suite.”*
After only a matter of hours, Publicis chief executive Maurice Levy stated that Mr Roberts had been asked to take immediate leave of absence. He stated that “diversity and inclusion are business imperatives on which Publicis Groupe will not negotiate.” He went on, “Promoting gender equality starts at the top and the Groupe will not tolerate anyone speaking for our organisation who does not value the importance of inclusion.” So, were Kevin Roberts’ words so ‘wrong’ as to necessitate the premature ending of a very successful advertising career? If so, how different might the response have been had it been a female boss making similar remarks?
It does seem somewhat odd to be having this debate within weeks of the UK having its second female prime minister. Is the debate about equality in the boardroom really ‘over’ as Mr Roberts suggested, and is there any truth in his comments? The situation is, of course, far from simple. Editor of American online magazine Real Simple, Kristin van Ogtrop, wrote about this very subject in an article which originally appeared in Time Magazine on 17 September 2015. (http://www.realsimple.com/work-life/life-strategies/job-career/kristin-van-ogtrop-why-ambition-isnt-working-for-women). Her conclusion, although not couched in quite the same terms as Mr Roberts couched his, seems also to be that although woman are no less ambitious than men, their ambition takes a slightly different form. Van Ogtrop asks whether what separates men from women in terms of ambition is hormones. She admits that this sounds retrograde, but questions how else to explain the fact that in both research and anecdotal evidence, ambition for women is about a lot more than work. Essentially, what she said amounts to very much the same thing as Kevin Roberts said, but the fact that she is not a man may make it allowable for her to say it – or perhaps being an award-winning journalist she just expressed herself better.
The survey which prompted Kristin van Ogrop’s article was the second poll by Real Simple on women’s ambition. http://time.com/4037527/7-surprising-facts-about-women-and-ambition-from-the-time-real-simple-poll/ Some of the interesting facts which came to light from that survey were the differences between younger and older women; the differences between mothers and those without children and the ‘fear of failure’ prevalent amongst the ‘millenials’. Only a couple of months later on 19 November, an article by Melissa Davey in The Guardian online, examined the findings of Professor Michelle Ryan (professor of social and organisational psychology at the University of Exeter). Like the anecdotal evidence gathered by Real Simple, Professor Ryan’s survey shows that women’s ambition decreases over time. However, she concludes that this has nothing to do with having children or family commitments, but that it relates to “lack of support, mentors or role models to make it to the top and the subtle biases against women that lead to their choices.” Ryan said her research found the situation to be complicated. She went on to explain that “It’s great to say women are agentic beings but to say it’s all a free choice not constrained by context and certain conditions placed on them is not always correct.”
Men and women are often hampered in their ‘free choice’ by context and conditions, so to say this is specifically true of women appears a little disingenuous. However to the extent that many women are perhaps more constrained or demotivated by conditions is of course true. The workplace is still in so many ways a male-dominated environment and has evolved to suit the way men think and work. This factor has changed very little over the last three decades and at boardroom level and in many fields the ‘macho’ ethos still prevails. As a junior in a City law firm, I remember thinking that perhaps as more women moved into the profession there would be less of the competitive ‘all-nighters’ (all-night negotiations with minimal sustenance) which many of the male lawyers used to notch up with pride. Speaking to young female lawyers now, it appears that nothing has changed – except that more women are seated around the table during such sessions. As Dr Anna Frels points out in her fascinating 2004 article published by the Harvard Business Review (https://hbr.org/2004/04/do-women-lack-ambition) ‘Women who pursue careers must cope with jobs structured to accommodate life cycles of men with wives who don’t have full-time careers’. I suspect that even 12 years on this still holds true.
The workplace generally lacks flexibility and certainly takes little account of the fact that most women still take ultimate responsibility for childcare. Should women wish to ‘have it all’ and have a career as well as a family, childcare can seem a prohibitive expense. This accounts for the many women who leave employment to set up their own businesses which, although requiring no less (indeed probably more) hours, can be conducted around family life. Can the next generation manage things differently? Kristin van Ogtrop cites the words of one Angela Su, 25, lead buyer and planner at digital fashion business Bombfell: “I strive hard to do well at my job, but towards what end?” she asks. “I guess to be happy or live a good life, but I’m struggling to define what a good life means. Ambition is like the end goal, and that’s the kind of thing I’m suddenly questioning. What am I being driven toward?” Was it not this questioning of linear ambition which Kevin Roberts was identifying when he made his ill-fated comments? Surely this is a discussion to be had openly – between men and women.
*For those unfamiliar with this term, it is slang used to denote collectively the highest officers in a company or corporation – so-called because the senior executives’ titles tend to start with the letter C.
If you enjoyed this article please share it using the buttons above.
Please click here if you would like a weekly email on publication of the Shaw Sheet
