In the beginning of December, we had an exciting and very moving workshop on this socially important topic – here is a brief retrospect:
About our guest speaker Traudl Burgmair
Traudl is an inspiring motivator, coach and trainer who uses all her knowledge and experience to help women fulfill female leadership role with confidence, authenticity and empathy. With more than 30 years of leadership experience in C-level management in American corporations, broad psychological training, coupled with relevant life experience, she has become an outstanding coach (not only, but especially) for women. To find out more information about Traudl visit her website.
The topic of this PhiloBrunch
After a brief welcome and introductory round, we started with a general introduction to the topic of leadership. What does leadership actually mean? When answering this question in the group, it quickly became clear that good leadership always starts with ourselves. So what does that mean – leadership starts with yourself? We answered this question with counter-questions: do I know myself – can I and do I truly want to understand others – am I empathetic – am I capable of trusting others – do I want to grow and develop together with others (or do I just want others to do what I want) – and the most fundamental question of all: do I like people at all? We came to the conclusion that the more often I honestly have to answer no to these questions, the more difficult it will be to lead “well”.
We then took a closer look at the different energies of women and men and found that women are generally more emotional, intuitive, yielding, sensitive and understanding. Whereas men are generally prone to be more self-confident, stable, outrageous, protective and more inclined to test boundaries. At the extremes, women are therefore more easily victimized, appear less energetic, tend to be more manipulative, and tend to react more overly sensitive and emotional. Men, on the other hand, tend to be more dominant, aggressive, controlling and competitive in the extreme and are more likely to abuse power and are less able to accept criticism. It was also made clear that these energies assigned to women and men are of course also present in the other gender – but perhaps to a lesser extent and more strongly overlaid by the more gender-specific energies – and as always: exceptions prove the rule here too. It was important to keep these gender-specific tendencies in mind for an overall view and the common thread of the topic.
We then looked at statistics which gave us an impression of the practiced roles in Germany today and that were important for understanding the role of women in society and especially in the workplace: Women only contribute 22.4% to family income – Germany is at the bottom of the OECD – 62% of mothers aged 25-54 work part-time /men < 10% – Germany has the widest gender pension gap in the OECD – Women are better educated but paid less – 22% worse – 63% of married women (aged 30-50) have a net income < €1,000 – one in 4 women have experienced domestic violence – 43% of single-parent families are living in poverty – women with one child earn 40% / with 3 children even 70% less than men – working women do 2x more work in the household and are 3x more active in childcare – overall, women take on twice as much nursing work as men – 98% of mothers take parental leave / but only 42% of fathers – 27% of fathers, who do not take parental leave deliberately do not want to – 58% of teenage girls are willing to cut back significantly for the family, as opposed to only 16% of boys.
So what are the possible causes of this allocation of roles in Germany today?
We came to the conclusion that socialization from an early age – in the family, kindergarten, school, etc. – certainly plays a part in this. We found that women tend to be conditioned in the following way: I am not (yet) enough – don’t stand out – what others think of me is important – I need a man to be happy – the needs of others are more important than my own. Men, on the other hand, tend to be conditioned as follows: I have to be strong – men don’t cry and don’t know pain – I have to be able to feed my family – I have to be successful – I can’t show any feelings – I always have to win.
But unconscious biases also play their part, especially when it comes to assessing professional suitability for the job. Mothers generally find it harder to find a job, are offered a lower salary and are perceived as less competent and less committed. The opposite is true for men.
The final topic was then the question of what a professional world would look like in which equal opportunities actually prevailed and in which the undoubtedly different energies of women and men would develop in a balanced way – especially with regard to leadership in the company?
We concluded that a “diverse” company obviously benefits from a greater diversity of opinions, as women, with their views, experiences and expertise, provide a more holistic view on a wide range of business challenges. The image of a “diverse” employer has a much stronger pull effect on new talent than that of an employer that primarily consists of male cliques. The working atmosphere experiences a positive “drive” through greater diversity, as there is more transformational leadership than transactional leadership. This means more communication, more inspiration, more motivation, more caring and, above all, motivation shifts from mainly extrinsic (reward, status, pressure) towards more intrinsic (curiosity, joy, interest).
Ultimately, we came to the conclusion that real equal opportunities can only be achieved together – men, women, companies and society as a whole have a responsibility here. It’s about practicing respect and deference towards one another. It is about recognizing and appreciating the differences between women and men. Recognizing the benefits of equal opportunities, whether at home or at work. A willingness to change for the benefit of all, men and women alike, starting with early childhood.
The course of the PhiloBrunch
As always, there was of course a cozy brunch and plenty of space and breaks for discussions with our guest speaker and the other participants.
And as always we discussed the resolution of very practical and concrete dilemma situations in connection with the topic. The following situation was presented to the participants for reflection:
“Johanna works in an international company. She was promoted to team leader about a year ago (one of the youngest in her environment) and wants to prove to herself and her superiors that this should only be the first step towards her goal of reaching C-level in her company. She was recently tasked to appoint somebody to lead a specific, strategically very important project. This project will have high visibility with the board. She was able to narrow down the group of candidates to 3 finalists: 2 men and one woman. The female candidate is still quite new to the company, but shows a lot of talent and skill. Both male candidates have strong internal networks and a lot of experience thanks to their long service with the company. Johanna is determined to promote women, but a wrong decision could also have negative consequences for herself. Should she give the other woman a chance or rather make the “safe choice”?
How would you decide?
At the end of the event, everyone had the opportunity to give feedback and, above all, to share key take-aways. Here is an overview of these thoughts:
You can find more pictures from the event in our media library.
Authors: The PhiloBrunch organization team of Ethica Rationalis