 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
From Chapter 3: Repressing Sexuality
We are amazed at how much effort is expended attempting to repress sexuality at the office. We have all seen the dysfunctional results of living a “free” lifestyle promoting an excessively relaxed ethic regarding sexual expression. However, it is interesting to observe the swing of approved sexual behavior from the 1950s to the 1960s to 1980s to the present. Public attitudes regarding homosexuality, abortion, gay and lesbian marriage, marital commitment, circumcision, touching, hugging, body fat content, and nudity not only change over time but quite often we observe dramatic shifts, over very short periods of time, among individuals and groups.
How do we express our own personal sexuality? How do groups of people, working together, express their own sense of sexuality – what’s acceptable and what’s not acceptable? When is it acceptable to sit on someone’s lap at the office (if ever) and when is it totally unacceptable?
There are vast differences in both substantive sexual values and styles in the wide range of workplace environments. The editorial board of Cosmopolitan Magazine would certainly strike us as being different in sexual style and value than the board of directors of Citibank. There are differences between groups of people who share fundamental, traditionally-based sexual/behavioral values and groups of people who share post-modern, secular, rationally-based values. These groups will (1) act differently, they will (2) accept a very specific, but radically different set of behaviors as appropriate and they will (3) reject extraordinarily different, but surprisingly predictable, sets of values and behaviors expressed by others.
A southern-based manufacturing company was struggling with supply problems; unable to make production goals, the plant manager became frustrated with the criticism he took for not making his numbers. After some effort to identify the problem, he concluded that the problem was that his suppliers were not delivering parts on a timely basis. Now he was looking for someone to get in touch with his major suppliers and “make them toe the line.”
After unsuccessfully looking for internal staff available to address the problem, he put in a requisition to a search firm to find just the right person. While the process began to unfold, a young female engineer, who was working closely with manufacturing, asked to talk with the plant manager about the problem. Having no idea what a young, California-educated, female engineer could contribute to solving the problem but being completely desperate for a solution – he agreed to see her.
“Come on in, honey,” he said. “What’s on your pretty little mind?”
“I think we’re looking for a solution in the wrong spot,” she replied.
“So you think you’re the solution to our number’s problem?” he said, thinking she thought she would be the person to go out and make the suppliers conform to their promises.
“Well I do. I think I understand the problem and thought you might want to hear my thoughts,” she replied as she later reported in court documents months later.
Then came the quote that indicated that this young post-modern engineer had a different set of expectations for how the plant manager was going to deal with her sexuality from what the plant manager thought was acceptable. Both the plant manager and engineer were thinking that they were acting acceptably and well within corporate norms.
“Look sweetheart, I need someone that’s going to go out and “kick some ass” and you’re pretty little face isn’t going to get them thinking about ‘kicking’ ass.”
Skip to the chase – the company lost both the engineer and a substantial amount of money in a settlement only to discover that, indeed, the engineer was right. The company was not supplying accurate numbers to the suppliers, but the suppliers didn’t want to indicate this to senior management. They were rightfully afraid of making the plant manager look bad and losing the account.
Not so surprisingly, the plant manager was asked to apologize to the engineer for his comments. The plant manager initially refused because he didn’t think she understood the problem nor had the skill to get the job done. He actually thought that he was complimenting her for her good looks and couldn’t understand why she would be offended. He understood that he should have listened, but was that such a big problem? By the time the attorneys became involved, the engineer said that she really wasn’t all that offended “but thought that the company and the plant manager should get into the 20th century at least, and understand how to deal with people ‘from the West Coast.” The settlement was intended to send a signal to the company to do some “HR training” with their senior staff.
This all seems so simple to those who have been “well trained in how to deal with HR problems.” Clearly the plant manager was out of line, should have quickly apologized, and listened to the young engineer. However, had the Plant manager been “well trained,” how would he have likely responded?
The odds are strongly in favor of the plant manager overtly “listening” to her thoughts, but quietly concluding in advance that she was not the answer to the problem he thought he faced. After a brief session, he would have politely thanked her, adding that that he would let her know if he needed her help. No harm, no foul, no lawsuit, no solution. Problem successfully repressed – no change in attitude or insight into the problem. The pressure was applied to the balloon, but the result was just a change in shape. It’s another example of trading a known and easily identified problem for one that takes another (and likely more difficult to address) shape.
Mandating overt behaviors by law doesn’t change the underlying diversity of attitudes about sexuality. The plant manager grew up in the south where he was culturally conditioned to deal with good-looking, intelligent women by ignoring their intelligence. To men of his culture, women were sex objects, valued for their beauty, the sexual pleasure they could give, and their ability to bear and raise children. In contrast, the young woman left the south to get an engineering degree at UC Berkeley. She returned to her hometown with a very changed different perspective and value orientation regarding sexuality in the workplace.
A conflict of values this deep will not be resolved by either a court awarded settlement of cash or a few rounds of “sensitivity training” or “avoidance training” for senior plant managers.
Where was the CEO or senior vice president in all of this? Why wasn’t he or she on top of the potential conflict? What could he or she have done to lead both the plant manager and the engineer to a resolution before it got to court? Why did the young engineer have to leave the company where she fought so hard to get a position right after she graduated? What could the CEO have done to address the deeper issues sooner, rather than let them become a potential media nightmare? In this case, the result left all parties (except for the lawyers) disappointed, angry, and frustrated instead of happy and satisfied with the resolution.
Here’s an idea out to help you think about the meaning of healthy values in your company. Do this on a Saturday or Sunday morning when you don’t have any pressures and have time to read and reflect. Skim each chapter of the book. Highlight in yellow the ideas and suggestions most helpful or insightful to you. Don’t mark up every idea; only those big ideas that grab you.
Take out a yellow note pad and go back through the book. Write down each of the highlighted ideas. For each idea, ask and answer these questions:
• What is it about this idea that seems important to me?
• How can this idea help me on Monday begin to create a sexy, powerful team with a high commitment to values?
• How can I begin this process without whacking everyone out?