Despite great strides academically and professionally, women still face gender inequality and unfair compensation in the workplace, along with discrimination, sexual harassment, family-unfriendly policies, and fewer mentors. Internal factors hold them back, as well. Many women lack self-confidence and don’t speak up at work. They don’t take career risks, compromising professional goals for family duties.
Author Sheryl Sandberg urges women to “lean in” -- to take risks and be ambitious in their professional goals. Change will come when women speak up, gain confidence, demand more help at home, and ascend to more leadership positions.
Women tend to leave the workforce when mixing career and family becomes too difficult; as the years go by, there are fewer women in high-ranking leadership positions.
Part of the problem is the “Leadership Ambition Gap.” Fewer women aspire to senior level jobs. Why? Men are applauded for being ambitious, but hard-charging women violate societal conventions. This bias begins early. Gender stereotypes from birth encourage boys to be leaders, but girls are encouraged to be nurturing. Assertive girls are labeled “bossy.”
The Leadership Ambition Gap can be narrowed when women throw aside their fears, aim high, and pursue leadership boldly without regard for gender stereotypes.
Many women are plagued by “impostor syndrome,” held back by self-doubt and insecurity. They feel like a fraud and underestimate themselves, taking negative feedback and stereotypes as truth.
Women can fight impostor syndrome by understanding this feeling is a distortion of reality. When they’re feeling self-doubt, they can remind themselves of their intelligence and past successes; when self-confidence wanes they can act confident, even if they don’t feel it.
Self-confidence is critical for workplace success because it allows you to reach for new opportunities -- something women need to do much more of.
A 2003 study tested perceptions of men and women in the workforce. The case study of a successful entrepreneur named Heidi was given to one group. An identical study was given to a second group, but with Heidi’s name changed to Howard. The students respected Heidi and Howard equally, but gave Howard greater likeability scores. The takeaway: men can be decisive and driven and remain likeable, but women are punished for acting the same way. Society expects women to act in a nurturing and communal way.
This bias hurts women financially. This is called the “gender discount problem.” Because women are seen as communal, they are often expected to help coworkers and take on additional projects without additional reward. Negotiating for a raise or compensation is another aspect; both men and women react unfavorably when a woman advocates for herself. To overcome this, women fare better in negotiations if they come across as concerned about others, offer a valid explanation for the negotiation, and mix persistence with niceness.
A jungle gym is a more apt metaphor for careers these days than the traditional “ladder to success.” People switch jobs, make lateral moves, and take more risks.
While mapping a career path isn’t necessary, it helps to have a long-term dream to provide direction. For example, perhaps you want to travel or win a major prize. To improve yourself in the short term, Sandberg advises creating an 18-month plan, setting goals for professional accomplishments as well as learning and improving personal skills.
When evaluating new career opportunities, look for jobs with growth potential even if it seems risky or the title is less prestigious. Taking risks is important because diverse experiences prepare you for leadership. To advance professionally, it’s necessary to be brave on the career jungle gym and go after what you want, advocating for yourself.
Having a mentor is critical for career progression, but women often have a hard time finding one. Women are more likely to try to chase a mentor connection and force a relationship. Sandberg’s advice is to change the mentality from “Get a mentor and you’ll excel,” to “Excel and you’ll get a mentor.”
Since there aren’t enough senior-level women to act as mentors, men have to step up to help women, even though they may be wary of sexual innuendo and misperceptions about male-female professional relationships..
Honest, authentic communication in the workplace is critical for professional relationships and career growth, but women are often afraid to appear negative or call attention to themselves.
To communicate effectively, women can be “delicately honest,” use simple language, and listen to another person’s point of view. Leaders must ask for feedback, be open to hearing the truth, take responsibility for their mistakes, and publicly encourage and reward the honesty of others.
Sometimes honesty in the workplace can give way to emotion, and this should be OK. Responding to emotion with compassion can foster stronger relationships and allow people to be their authentic selves at work.
Women leave the workforce slowly, making small decisions to benefit future families, such as refusing promotions and declining to reach for new opportunities. But these decisions can backfire, stranding them in unfulfilling jobs. When a woman has a child, she then returns to a job she doesn’t love and is more likely to leave the workforce entirely.
Sandberg says the months and years leading up to having kids are the time to lean in and build a woman’s career. After having kids, she returns to a rewarding job she loves. She is then less likely to leave the workforce; with senior position and pay, she has more options and flexibility as a parent to create a workable situation to balance family life.
For women to succeed in leadership positions, they need the support of men in the home. To empower men, working moms must be aware of the tendency toward “maternal gatekeeping,” which refers to a woman being controlling or judgmental with her partner’s child care methods.
Equality between partners leads to healthier, happier relationships. Risk of divorce reduces by half when a wife earns half the income and the partner does half the housework. Children with involved, loving dads have better cognitive abilities, a greater sense of well-being, lower delinquency rates, and higher educational achievement.
Having a perfect balance between a rewarding career, great marriage, and happy children is a myth. Pursuing a professional life and a personal life is an attainable goal, but it won’t be perfect; it requires adjustments, compromises and sacrifices every day. Striving for perfection is a recipe for disappointment that may lead to women leaving the workforce entirely.
While you can't do it all, you can do what’s most important for you and your family. Identify your real priorities at home and work; aim for “sustainable and fulfilling” instead of “perfection.”
Sandberg wrote this book to encourage women to dream big, get through obstacles, and reach their full potential. Each woman should be able to set her own goals and reach for them. When more women lean in, we change the power structure of our world and expand opportunities for all. In the future there won’t be female leaders, there will simply be leaders.
Women in the U.S. and developed countries are better off today than the women who came before them -- the ones who fought for the rights women take for granted, such as voting.
They are certainly better off than women in countries without even basic civil rights. In too many places, women face incomprehensible struggles. In Afghanistan and Sudan, for example, most girls aren’t allowed an education. Worldwide, 4.4 million women and girls are trapped in the sex trade. There are places where rape victims are cast out of their homes or even jailed for “moral crimes.”
Women in the U.S. and developed countries have also made great strides academically and post-college, comprising 50% of college graduates by the early 1980s. Numbers have steadily improved for women in the areas of degrees earned, jobs taken, earnings made, and entering traditionally male-dominated fields.
But women can’t be complacent and rest on the strides already made. There is still a great deal of work to be done to create gender equality in the professional world.
Author Sheryl Sandberg saw women excel in college; she observed an even mix of men and women in post-graduation entry-level jobs. Even if men still dominated leadership positions at that point, she thought the “glass ceiling” had cracked and it was just a matter of time until leadership roles were equally filled by women.
But as the years passed and Sandberg advanced in her career, her women peers diminished. Often she was the only woman in the room. She once asked where the women’s restroom was at a business meeting and no one knew -- no woman had ever been in that conference room before!
Sandberg realized the “revolution” in women’s equality had stalled. Women were fading out of the workforce before reaching top-level, leadership positions, stalled by internal and external barriers keeping them from advancing in their careers.
Externally, women face:
Internal barriers are perhaps more insidious; they’re not discussed as much and many women don’t realize these factors are holding them back. They include:
In this summary, we’ll cover most of these issues and how to overcome them.
This lack of women in leadership roles hurts everyone. Without gender equality in leadership, we’re not tapping half the pool of human resources and talent, so we’re not achieving and innovating everything that’s possible. Warren Buffett attributed his success in part to the fact that he was competing against only half the population.
More women in power will create better conditions for all women, expanding opportunity and fairer treatment. Women leaders would better understand the needs of working mothers, set an example for young women to follow, and ensure equality in pay and respect.
To get more women into leadership positions and begin the sea change toward gender equality, Sandberg advises women to focus on overcoming the internal barriers to success -- the things they can control.
She wants women to “lean in,” which means to take risks and be ambitious in their professional goals. She urges women to speak up, gain confidence, and demand more help at home from their partners. In turn, she calls on men to be partners who understand what their wives, colleagues, mothers, sisters and friends are up against.
Sandberg understands that not every woman wants career success, or children, or both. But, she believes, it’s about having choices and opportunities. Women who do aspire to positions of leadership should be encouraged on their journey.
Sandberg is criticized for being out of touch; she’s wealthy and has access to excellent help and childcare. She counters that the advice in this book is what she would have told herself when she was just starting out.
She has also been criticized for “blaming the victim”-- pressing women to lean in and take responsibility for their career growth and staying in the workforce. She disagrees; she believes female leaders are key to reaching gender equality, so she is focusing on what women can change. The institutional changes will follow when more women are in power.
(Shortform note: because the book is aimed at women, we’ll often address the reader “you” as though you’re a woman. But we’re aware that this book is useful for men to read, and much of the career advice is useful to men as well.)
The experiences of the women in Sandberg’s family mirror societal changes through the years.
Her grandmother, born in the 1910s, was pulled out of high school to help earn money for the family. After a teacher insisted she return, she went on to graduate from UC Berkeley. Lore has it that when she left her job to get married it took four people to replace her. During her marriage, she saved her husband’s ailing business and even sold watches out of her car to raise money for a clinic -- turning a profit.
Sandberg’s mother, born in the 1940s, was treated equally with her brothers in terms of educational expectations. She graduated from UPenn and entered a Ph.D. program, but dropped out to become a stay-at-home parent and active volunteer.
Sandberg, her brother and sister, were all expected to achieve academically. In an era of increasing equality, she was raised to believe all career paths were open to her. In college, she saw both genders focus equally on academics; men and women were aggressively competitive. She and her friends assumed they would have careers and children. The playing field finally seemed level.
But as Sandberg ascended to the top of the business world, she looked around and realized she was a rarity. Her male classmates from college still worked professionally, but of her high-achieving female classmates, some were professionals, some worked part time, and many stayed at home with children.
This mirrors the national trend of women’s journey through the workforce. In the years after college, women tend to scale back and even drop out of the workforce. This leads to companies and mentors investing in men, who are more likely to stay in the workforce.
So why did progress stall for women’s equality in the workforce just when the playing field seemed more level? There are a few reasons:
Perhaps the biggest reason women don’t advance in the workforce is what Sandberg terms the “leadership ambition gap.” Data shows fewer women than men aspire to senior level jobs:
This lack of leadership ambition in women starts before they enter the workforce. A survey of college students showed that “becoming a manager within 3 years of graduation” was less of a career priority for women than men. (While strides are being made a bit with millennial women, there’s still a long way to go.)
The result: more men aim for leadership roles and more men get leadership roles. This pattern starts in childhood and grows stronger. Data shows that in middle school, more boys aspire to leadership roles when they grow up. At the top 50 colleges, more than two thirds of student government presidents are male.
(Some disagree with the idea of inherent lesser ambition in women, saying women are simply more enlightened with more meaningful goals than being a corporate executive. Sandberg doesn’t completely disagree and doesn’t dispute that women may have more innate nurturing tendencies. But, Sandberg argues, a desire for leadership is a culturally enforced trait, and our culture sends the leadership message to boys -- and not girls -- early on.)
There are several factors behind the leadership ambition gap:
But perhaps the two biggest factors are:
Gender stereotypes imposed from birth encourage boys to see themselves as leaders and girls to see themselves as nurturers. This stereotype extends into adulthood, affecting how women behave in their careers.
Boys and girls are treated differently even as babies. Data shows mothers nurture girls more, offering more help and comfort; meanwhile, boys are encouraged to play by themselves. Moms overestimate baby boys’ crawling ability while underestimating that of girls.
Society soon chimes in to reinforce the stereotype. Sandberg recounts seeing Gymboree baby onesies that read, “Pretty Like Mommy,” and “Smart Like Daddy.” A viral video of 4-year-old girl in a toy store drives home the pressure: Upset by the sea of pink she’s supposed to like in the girls’ toy section, she laments, “Some girls like superheroes.”
As they grow, girls are actively discouraged from leadership.They are rewarded for being pretty and encouraged to be nurturing. If a girl is assertive, she’s labeled “bossy.” Sandberg recalls her childhood as a “bossy” girl, directing other kids’ play and organizing neighborhood shows. These behaviors would have been seen as leadership traits, not bossiness, in a boy.
School reinforces the stereotypes. Data shows teachers interact more with boys (calling on them, asking questions) than girls. Boys are more likely to shout out answers without raising their hand -- and get listened to. In contrast, if a girl shouts out an answer without raising her hand, she is more likely to be scolded.
The “stereotype threat” complicates the fight against stereotypes. Social scientists say when a group is made aware of a negative stereotype, they are more likely to perform according to that stereotype. For example, if girls are aware of the stereotype that boys are better at math or science, when they are reminded of their gender before a test (even something as simple as checking the box F for female), they perform worse. This phenomenon discourages girls from entering tech fields.
Stereotypes in the media help reinforce a negative image of women in leadership. Working women are portrayed as consumed by career with no personal life, like Sigourney Weaver in Working Girl or Sandra Bullock in The Proposal.
Media stereotypes have real-world results: a survey showed that when there is a woman in a senior leadership role in a company, female subordinates say they “don’t want to be like her.”
When women accept the stereotype of a woman in management as negative, they are less likely to pursue opportunities for advancement.
While men assume they can have successful work and family lives, women assume that doing both will be difficult to impossible. Women are afraid of the challenges they’ll face with a demanding job and family commitments. They’re afraid of not being liked, making wrong choices, drawing negative attention, and failing. They fear being a bad wife and mother.
Without fear, Sandberg asserts, doors open for women. They can pursue work, family, or both. They can take risks. Sandberg urges women to fight their fears and pursue leadership boldly, without caring what other people think and what stereotypes say. A sign in the Facebook office said: “What would you do if you weren’t afraid?” For Sandberg, this advice led to her writing Lean In, something that initially scared her.
What would you do if you weren’t afraid?
Have you ever felt that a stereotype (about your gender or other piece of your identity) negatively affects how you behaved? What was the stereotype, and what’s a specific time it affected your behavior?
Sandberg asked herself the question, “What would you do if you weren’t afraid?” For her, the answer was writing Lean In. What would you do if you weren’t afraid?
To begin this challenge, what’s the first step you can take?
Women face many obstacles on their path to leadership, but internal barriers, such as insecurity, can alter their behavior and make workplace success even more difficult.
To illustrate this, Sandberg recounts a meeting in a conference room. The only four women present sat in chairs behind the table. Sandberg beckoned them over, but they waved her off. Later, she explained that they should have been at the table; they were part of the discussion, not observers. The women were surprised and agreed. It hadn’t occurred to them to sit at the big table. They held themselves back, literally watching from the sidelines, due to insecurity.
This self-doubt women carry is called “impostor syndrome.” They feel like impostors inside, as if at any moment they’ll be revealed as frauds. When praised, they feel undeserving and guilty, like a mistake has been made.
Despite her qualifications, even Sandberg has been affected by impostor syndrome. She arrived at Harvard unprepared for its academic rigor and soon felt lost, not as smart as everyone else -- a fraud. Through hard work she excelled, but she could never shake this nagging self-doubt.
Women are more likely than men to be affected and limited by impostor syndrome, often judging their performance as worse than it really is. In contrast, men tend to judge their performance as better than it is. Data supports this:
Contributing to impostor syndrome, women feel more lacking in intrinsic ability compared to men.
A woman is more likely to internalize negative feedback, letting it lower her self-confidence.
Women are tough on themselves, but society mirrors this attitude. For example, Sandberg was the subject of an article that called her “lucky,” citing mentors and opportunities as reasons for her success. No one would ascribe a man’s success to these factors.
It’s hard to shake self-doubt, but knowing this feeling is a distortion of reality is the first step. Sandberg advises women to make an emotional and intellectual adjustment when interpreting successes and failures. For example, when feeling headed for failure, Sandberg learned to remind herself of past successes, thus challenging her natural instinct and undistorting the distortion.
Lack of confidence is a self-fulfilling prophecy and it's important to fight it. One tactic is to fake it. Research backs up the “fake it til you make it” strategy. Even a change in posture can boost testosterone and lower stress hormones, making you feel more in charge.
The most important opportunities are seized, not offered, and being confident (or faking it) allows you to go for it. Confidence allows you to create opportunities for yourself.
Making matters worse, no one is noticing and trying to make up for women’s reticence. For example, after giving a lecture on gender issues, Sandberg took questions and then announced “two more questions only.” After two were answered, the women put down their hands, but men kept their hands up; she continued to answer their questions.
Later, a woman said the biggest thing she took from the talk was to “keep her hand up.” Even someone as cognizant of the issues as Sandberg had been blind to a gender issue during a gender equality talk.
A world with greater equality requires two things:
Some people, like the women at Sandberg’s conference who sat behind the main table, don’t even realize that their actions stem from insecurity. It just felt normal to sit as an observer. Do you similarly betray a lack of confidence in the work setting?
Do you recall a time when you took a periphery position in a work situation, and prevented yourself from actively participating? Did it bother you then or did it feel normal?
Looking back now, what would you change? At the next opportunity, how will you exhibit more self confidence?
How can you encourage people who sit on the sidelines to lean in or keep their hand up?
The 2003 “Heidi/Howard” study tested perceptions of women and men in the workforce. Participants in one group got a case study of an entrepreneur named Heidi, detailing her “outgoing personality” and powerful network. A second group got the same profile, but with “Heidi” renamed “Howard.” Both groups were asked to give their impression of the entrepreneur.
The students respected Heidi and Howard equally, but gave Howard greater likeability scores. They found Howard more appealing than Heidi, though it was the same story. The same data created different impressions depending on which gender it cited. Heidi was seen as selfish; Howard was seen as appealing.
This study demonstrates the difference between likeability and success for men and women. The more successful a man is, the greater his likeability. The more successful a woman is, the worse her likeability.
Why is this? Professional achievement is considered a “male” attribute. If a man is high-achieving, it’s normal. If a woman is highly successful, she is seen as pushy, unlikeable and unfeminine. This reflects traditional gender stereotypes: males are providers, decisive and driven. They’re given positive reinforcement for these traits. Women are seen as caregivers, nurturing and communal. They’re given positive reinforcement for these traits.
When women break traditional gender stereotypes by displaying traits of professional achievement, such as being decisive and driven, they're deemed “too aggressive,” “not a team player,” and “difficult.” If a woman focuses on getting the job done instead of pleasing others, she’s acting like a man.
Consider these examples of women leaders who had unsavory nicknames:
Heidi violated our stereotypes; Howard lived up to our expectations. This bias is at the heart of why women are held back and why they hold themselves back.
Little girls learn early on that being branded the smartest or most successful can work against them. For Sandberg, being the smartest girl in class made her a target of derision, so she muted her achievements from a young age to fit in and be liked.
This tendency to downplay success follows women from the classroom to the workplace, which creates a problem: striving for success requires women to be able to discuss their achievements, but doing so impedes their likeability -- and being liked is a critical component of leadership. When leaders are liked, they gain the support of others to get things done.
Men can claim credit for past accomplishments and be respected and liked, but women have to strike a balance between owning their success and being liked. For example, data shows that when a woman discusses previous successes in a job interview, she’s actually less likely to be hired -- she comes across as bragging. It’s a double-edged sword. A competent woman doesn’t seem nice; if a woman seems too nice she doesn’t seem competent.
Women pay a financial price for being perceived as more communal: they often do more in the workplace without more reward. This is called the “gender discount problem.”
For example, if a man helps a colleague, that colleague is indebted to him and will return the favor. A woman, on the other hand, is seen as “happy to help” and is less likely to have the favor reciprocated. If a man is too busy to help a colleague, it’s not an issue, but if a woman is too busy, she is penalized with unfavorable reviews or fewer rewards. She’s damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t.
The gender discount problem comes into play when negotiating for compensation. Men tend to negotiate more than women. There’s no downside for them; they are expected to advocate for themselves. But when a woman negotiates, both men and women react unfavorably. She’s seen as demanding, violating the perceived gender norms. Even if her negotiations are successful she pays a long-term penalty in goodwill and future opportunities.
Sandberg knows that adhering to these unwritten rules is terribly unfair to women. But, she counters, it is reality; this advice is a means to an end in a world that works this way right now. When more women are in leadership roles, then we can change the rules as a society.
Even while delicately balancing likeability and strong leadership, female leaders deal with resentment and wariness. When Sandbeg was hired at Facebook, she was trolled mercilessly online and told she’d ruin the company. It was devastating.
Women in leadership roles will likely have to sacrifice some likeability for success. Mark Zuckerberg even warned Sandberg that her desire to be liked could hold her back, saying, “When you want to change things, you can’t please everyone.”
To withstand the inevitable criticism, poor treatment and resentment, Sandberg’s advice is to
let yourself react emotionally and then move on. Real change will come as more women enter leadership positions. With more women in power, we’ll move toward a world where both men and women are comfortable with women leaders.
Do you harbor some biases you don’t even know about?
Have you ever viewed a woman in a leadership position negatively? What are the qualities she exhibited that made you dislike her?
Now, imagine she was a man, and the man behaves the same way she did. Would you dislike him as much? Why or why not?
Now that women are aware it’s ok to be ambitious, how should they plan for their career trajectory?
Times have changed since Sandberg’s grandmother worked. The “ladder to success,” where people join a company and spend years moving up to higher positions, isn’t today’s reality, where people have an average of 11 jobs from age 18-46.
Jungle gyms are a much better metaphor for a successful career, symbolizing creative exploration, more risks, and many ways to get to the top.
While a career path doesn’t need to be mapped out, setting two types of plans is key:
In any field, there are jobs and companies with more potential for growth than others. Women in particular must take more career risks because diverse experiences prepare you for leadership. Stability too often comes at the price of growth opportunities.
For Sandberg, the opportunity to join Google seemed ideal -- its mission “to provide the world access to info” appealed to her long-term goal of changing the world. But Google was a wildcard -- a new company without clear direction; other more traditional companies had offered her more clearly defined opportunities.
Eric Schmidt told her “not to be an idiot.” He said potential for growth should be the only criteria for job selection. “If you’re offered a seat on a rocket ship, you don’t ask what seat. You just get on.”
Sometimes women miss out on a great opportunity because they’re too focused on the level or title, fearing a career setback. But if the move means learning new skills, you’re actually moving forward. When Sandberg eventually left Google to become Facebook’s COO, she passed up offers from other companies willing to hire her as CEO. She took a lower position because she prioritized potential for growth and the company mission over levels and titles.
It’s often hard for women to take the necessary risks for professional growth. They are more likely to accommodate a partner’s career, and relocating may not be an option when relationships and families are the priority.
Being risk-averse also means women are reluctant to take on challenging tasks in their current job. While men look for “stretch” assignments, women tend to hang back doing what they do best, worrying if they have the skills for a new role. Since skills are acquired on the job, this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Data shows that women apply for a job only if they meet 100 percent of the criteria. Men are comfortable applying for a job if they meet only 60 percent of the criteria; they figure they’ll learn the rest on the job.
Women are also risk-averse when it comes to applying for a promotion. They believe a good job performance will naturally lead to advancement; they shouldn’t have to advocate for themselves. This is termed the “Tiara Syndrome”: women think if they do a good job, someone will notice and place a symbolic tiara on their head, rewarding them with respect.
In a perfect world performance would be automatically rewarded. But in our world, advocating for yourself is necessary. Women have to take great care when advocating for themselves so they don’t hurt their likeability, as discussed previously, but it has to be done.
Become a stronger leadership candidate.
Sandberg advises women to figure out their long-term dream to provide direction for their goals. Her long-term dream was simply “making the world better.” What is your long-term dream?
An 18-month goal can help you develop skills in an area where you’re lacking. Sandberg worked on not blurting out her opinions. What is a skill you need to work on in the workplace? What can you do to correct an unhelpful tendency and build a better habit?
What is an opportunity you’re excited about but are worried you’re not fully qualified for? Why not go for it? What’s the worst that could happen?
Having a mentor is critical for career progression. While men have an easy time finding and maintaining mentor relationships, women do not. Women tend to take a more active approach to find a mentor, even trying to chase and force a mentor connection. They know the stakes are high and their chances of achieving skyrocket with a well-placed mentor.
But Sandberg counters that women have it backwards. A mentorship connection has to develop naturally. Studies show that mentors select mentees based on performance and potential. Instead of trying to find a mentor who will lead them toward success, women should excel first, get noticed, then allow an organic mentor relationship to develop.
It’s not, “Get a mentor and you’ll excel.” It’s, “Excel and you’ll get a mentor.”
To find and develop a mentor relationship, understand that approaching someone and asking, “Will you be my mentor?” does not work. But approaching someone with a well-thought-out inquiry could spark a discussion and a relationship.
For example, Sandberg often gets vague, general questions like, “What’s it like working at Facebook?” This leads nowhere. But when she was approached and asked to discuss a nonprofit that offered college counseling to low-income students -- a topic she cared about deeply -- she was willing to help.
Take every opportunity to learn from someone you admire. Grab a moment after a meeting to ask for advice. Make it casual and quick, then follow up as an opportunity to ask for more guidance. Don’t get stuck on the “mentor” label. It’s the relationship that’s important, not the formality of the setup. A mentor relationship can simply be decision-making help from someone investing time in you. Recognize and appreciate what this person is doing.
If you’re fortunate enough to have someone interested in helping you, behave with tact and courtesy. Be mindful of your mentor’s time; don’t just get together to catch up. The best use of a mentor’s time? Give them a problem to solve. Successful leaders are good at that!
A mentor doesn’t always have to be a superstar senior exec. Career guidance can come from all around you. A subordinate can be incredibly helpful, and peers can mentor and sponsor one another.
While not widespread, there is a positive trend toward companies offering official mentoring programs that work alongside other kinds of leadership and development training. These types of programs take the pressure off women from desperately seeing a mentor.
There aren’t enough women for every junior woman to be mentored by a senior-level woman. Men have to help. But this presents another mentorship hurdle for women: having a male mentor can be tricky because of the sexual context of male-female relationships. Men also fear the perception and are hesitant to have one-on-one meetings with women.
Sandberg asserts that this evasiveness must end. We all must not automatically assume a sexual component when there is a male-female professional relationship.
Men can agree to be mentors and set parameters that make them comfortable, and companies should foster and reward men helping women. For instance, one male executive has a “breakfast or lunch only” policy when meeting with women.
A mentor can offer invaluable guidance on your career journey, but the relationship has to develop organically.
Is there a senior-level executive you greatly admire, and whose advice you’d love to get? Can you grab a few minutes of their time after a meeting? What thoughtful question would you ask this person?
Is there a person in your professional life right now who offers guidance on decisions and who seems to be cheering you on? How can you grow this relationship?
Honest, authentic communication in the workplace is critical for professional relationships and career growth. If you don’t have authentic communication, bad situations (such as unfit managers) don’t get better because what’s really happening never comes to light.
But being truthful at work is tricky. Adults have been conditioned to be appropriate and polite, protecting themselves. The hierarchical structure of a workplace means someone is always above you, watching and rating your performance, so people in low-power positions are less likely to speak up.
For women in particular communicating honestly can be a landmine. They don’t want to be seen as not a team player. They don’t want to appear negative or critical. Plus, women carry the fear of calling attention to themselves, which hearkens back to “impostor syndrome.”
The best communication is where opinions are shared freely but feelings aren’t hurt. It’s being “delicately honest” as opposed to “brutally honest,” understanding that you have your truth and the other person has their truth.
One tool of effective communications is stating your opinion as opposed to stating a fact. For example, saying, “You never take my suggestions seriously!” puts the other person on the defensive, triggering a disagreement. But saying, “I am frustrated that you haven’t responded to my last 4 emails, leading me to believe that you don’t take my suggestions seriously,” can spark useful discussion.
Using simple language is important when communicating hard truths. We hedge and add caveats when trying to explain a tough problem; often the message is lost. For example, when Mark Zuckerberg was learning Chinese he would spend time with Chinese-speaking employees. One tried to communicate a problem, but Zuckerberg couldn’t understand and kept asking her to use simpler language. She finally blurted out, “My manager is bad!” He got the message.
LIstening is as important as speaking; hearing and understanding what the other person is saying is critical to authentic communication.
As a leader, you need others to tell you when something is going wrong -- and when you’re wrong. Being aware of a problem is the first step to solving it. But getting honest feedback can hurt. To take feedback correctly, understand that it’s not an absolute truth -- it’s one person’s perception based on what was revealed to them.
It’s critical for leaders to solicit and accept feedback well, be open to hearing the truth, and take responsibility for their mistakes. Persuading people to share their honest views leads to improvement in yourself and the company.
Since no one wants to offend the boss, leaders can encourage authentic communication by speaking openly about their weaknesses. For example, Sandberg is impatient. She’s open about this with colleagues, giving them permission to bring it up, point it out, and joke about it, knowing they won’t offend her.
Another way to foster authentic communication is to publicly reward the honesty of others. For example, Sandberg had plans to open a foreign Facebook office; a security team member told her doing so in that particular region was a terrible idea. She publicly thanked him to encourage others to call her out when she has a bad idea.
Sometimes honesty in the workplace can give way to emotion, which has long been considered taboo. But sometimes emotions do show up in the workplace, and that’s OK. For example, Sandberg erupted in tears to Mark Zuckerberg after a hearing a cruel rumor about herself. He let her speak and gave her a hug. This type of compassion leads to deeper relationships, creating better partners, managers and peers.
Honest, authentic communication means bringing our whole selves to work, not having a professional persona and a real persona. Sometimes professional decisions are emotionally driven, and it’s important to be honest about this. For example, when Sandberg refused a dream job in DC she didn’t make up an excuse. She was honest that her divorce made living there too painful. A year later, she was able to take advantage of the opportunity because of her original honesty.
A shift toward accepting emotions in the workplace is good news for women because it means they don’t have to try so hard to come across as stereotypically male. It’s good news for men too, because it also releases them from the stereotype. Perhaps the compassion and sensitivity that have held some women back will make them better leaders in the future.
An all-business approach at work may not always be the best course of business.
Think of a time when you became emotional in the workplace. What prompted your emotions, and how were they received by others? Were you showed compassion? Do others react poorly?
The next time a colleague becomes emotional at work, how can you use compassion to foster a deeper relationship?
From childhood, girls get the message that they’ll someday have to choose between motherhood and their job. Studies show they are already considering the work/parenthood tradeoffs by college. While planning ahead is good, when women plan too far ahead, they stop reaching for opportunities.
Women leave the workforce slowly, making small decisions along the way to account for future husbands and children. They “leave before they leave,” refusing promotions, not taking risks, and making decisions to account for children who aren’t here yet. This mental preparation for a family can occur years before the family materializes.
When a woman leans back in preparation for a family, she lands in a different place in her career than if she had continued to pursue challenges and opportunities. She ends up in a job that’s less demanding, but not as rewarding or fulfilling.
When she re-enters the workforce after having a child, she returns to this less-than-rewarding job. Her one-time peers in pay and prestige have moved ahead, and she may find herself working for people with less experience. She may feel underutilized and underappreciated.
Ultimately, she’s more likely to leave this unfulfilling job if finances allow, because becoming a stay-at-home mother becomes more appealing than returning to a job she doesn’t love.
This is a terrible irony for women: The decisions they made to stay in the workforce -- decisions they think will be good for them as working moms -- can land them in a job that’s unfulfilling and spur their decision to leave the workforce permanently.
Compounding matters, after having children women run into roadblocks in the workplace that make balancing family and career even more difficult. Rigid schedules, lack of paid family leave, and expensive childcare derail women’s best efforts to stay in the workforce.
The months and years leading up to having kids are the time to lean in, not lean back. All that time spent slowing down a career in preparation for family could be time spent building a woman’s career. Then, after she has children, she returns to a job she loves and is much less likely to leave the workforce. With senior position and pay, she has more options and flexibility as a parent to create a workable situation to balance family life
The time before having a child can even be a great time to take on a new job or opportunity. If you find a new role challenging and exciting, you’ll be more excited to return after giving birth.
It’s hard to leave your child. Only a compelling, rewarding job will make it a fair choice. And you can always change your mind later.
Don’t enter the workforce looking for the exit; accelerate until you have to decide. Then there will be a fair decision to be made. (Caveat: Sandberg acknowledges that there are many reasons to leave the workforce and circumstances are individual. How you want to parent is a personal decision to be respected.)
Decisions with the best intentions may hurt a woman’s desire to be a working mom.
Has there been an opportunity you didn’t take because you feared it would hurt your family or future family? Do you think the decision held you back from anything?
The next time you are offered a “stretch opportunity,” what will make you give it a shot?
In the last 30 years, as imperfect as it is, women have made more strides in the workplace than the home, where lopsided gender roles still prevail. Data shows that when both spouses work full time, mom does 40% more childcare and 30% more housework than dad. (Same-sex partners tend to divide household tasks more equally.)
Even the U.S. Census Bureau calls mothers the “designated parent,” while a father caring for his children is called a “child care arrangement.”
It doesn’t have to be this way. With knowledge and effort, dads can contribute equally to the home and childcare. For women to succeed at work, and men to succeed at home, traditional roles must be challenged.
Women with partners are more successful in the workforce. A majority of female business leaders have partners to whom they attribute their success. Conversely, 60% of women who left the paid workforce cited their husbands’ lack of participation in childcare and home duties as a direct cause.
Equitable parenting benefits the children. Kids with involved, loving dads have better cognitive abilities, a greater sense of well-being, lower delinquency rates, and higher educational achievement. They tend to be more socially competent and empathetic. This data is consistent against all socio-economic backgrounds.
Sharing home duties is critical to the career/family balance and requires communication, honesty and forgiveness. The division of labor is personal to couples and won’t be perfectly equal at all times, but rather a “pendulum” swinging back and forth.
But mom must not derail dad by slipping into “maternal gatekeeping,” which refers to women being controlling and judgemental about men’s child care methods. Women should let their partners do things their way; if he’s forced to do things her way, she’ll end up doing them. (Wives who engage in gatekeeping end up doing 5 more hours of family work per week.)
If you want a mate to be a true partner, treat him as an equally capable partner. Ideally, each parent should have their own responsibilities so it doesn’t feel like dad’s doing everyone a favor instead of simply doing his part.
It’s not easy in the workplace for fathers who want to be good parents and partners. Paternity leave is scant and reduced work hours for dads is frowned upon. Men who prioritize family face negative consequences at work, including teasing, lower ratings, and fewer advancement opportunities. There’s negative social pressure if a dad drops out of the workforce to care for family; he’ll likely face loneliness and feel unsupported.
Since men are expected to put career first, if a wife out-earns her husband, her success is viewed as threatening to the marriage. Sandberg has faced this issue with her husband, who was fortunately able to laugh it off. Women have enough problems getting ahead in the workforce; worrying about their husbands’ egos is the least of their problems.
To pave the way for men to help in the household, companies and societies should even the playing field. This includes giving equal time for paternity and maternity leave, and being more receptive to stay-at-home fathers.
The ideal partner is an equal. He wants to do his share in the home and thinks women should be ambitious, smart, and opinionated. While no one is perfect, and you will grow and learn together as you form your own partnership, it’s important to establish a 50-50 pattern from the start. If a marriage begins in an unequal place, it will only get more unbalanced when children come.
Equality between partners is equated with healthier, happier relationships. The risk of divorce reduces by half when a wife earns half the income and partner does half the housework.
True partnership sets the stage for the next generation. The sooner we break the cycle of gender-specific patterns in the home, the faster we’ll reach greater equality everywhere. Our goal is to model an equal division of labor for the next generation.
Are you guilty of maternal gatekeeping?
Sandberg cautions women to guard against the tendency toward controlling their partner’s child care contributions. Are you guilty of this? Think of some ways you may have unintentionally undermined your partner’s parental involvement.
Practice stepping back and letting him do things his way. Sandberg suggested a division of labor, with each of you having your own duties, is helpful. What are some duties he can take over, helping him create his own routines and rituals with his kids?
“Having it all” -- a perfect balance of a rewarding career, great marriage, and happy children -- is a myth that women have been taught to believe is possible. You can pursue a professional life and a personal life, but it won’t be perfect and it will require adjustments, compromises and sacrifices every day -- whether you are working by choice or necessity.
Women, not men, constantly get asked, “How do you juggle it all”? This question implies, “You have to be messing something up,” feeding on women’s feelings of guilt and inadequacy.
When women feel they are not achieving perfection at home and work, they may end up leaving the workforce. Trying to do it all perfectly is a recipe for disappointment.
A better approach is to identify the real priorities at home and work. Be a perfectionist only in things that demand it, and for the rest, aim for “sustainable and fulfilling” instead of “perfection.”
There is certainly no perfection possible in parenting. You can’t prepare for its constant, surprising challenges and variables. Facebook has a prominent sign that offers great advice for moms in and out of the workforce: “Done is better than perfect.”
It’s a woman’s responsibility to set limits for hours spent at work. In fact, long-term success in the workforce often depends on not meeting every demand and taking on every task. Burnout is the number one reason good employees leave a challenging job.
Often, no one is demanding a woman work the schedule she’s taken on; she puts pressure on herself because she fears losing respect, prestige and even her job. Sandberg knows this dilemma intimately. She planned to take three months off when her son was born, but found herself unable to “unplug” for fear of missing out, being replaced and ultimately not being needed at work. Ultimately, she felt she let herself and her baby down by not being fully present during this time.
As Sandberg’s baby grew, she realized she had to set her own schedule, make priority changes, and stick to them. She set reasonable work hours in the office and became more efficient, maximizing every minute and cutting unnecessary meetings. She found ways to do more work at home after spending time with her kids.
This dilemma cropped up again when she moved to Facebook and needed to fit in with its “night owl” culture and the demands of a startup. She began missing more and more time with her kids but once again realized it was up to her to set limits. She began forcing herself to leave the office at 5:30 and regained her balance.
Setting and keeping limits for yourself at work is hard; the workplace is more demanding than ever. Moms don’t want to be perceived as less dedicated to their jobs, so they overwork to overcompensate the perception.
Mothers and fathers alike are wary of taking advantage of flextime arrangements out of fear they’ll be penalized. “Face time” in the office is still seen as important. Data shows this to be true: employees who take advantage of flextime are seen as less dedicated and penalized.
These perceptions need to change. Data suggests working from home might actually be more productive, and technology allows you to do much more at home. (But technology is a double-edged sword as it extends the workday; we have to be aware and set limits at home.)
As more companies move toward flexible policies, the “face time” perception will be replaced by a focus on results.
Motherhood demands have ramped up, adding to the pressure working moms feel. In the prior generation, moms were available but not intensively present. For example, in 1975 they spent about 11 hours per week in primary care. In 2011 that number was 17 hours for stay-at-home moms and 11 for working moms.
So even though working moms spend as much time with their kids as stay-at-home moms used to, it’s no longer considered good enough. Sociologists call this elevated emphasis on time spent with children “intensive mothering,” a phenomenon that makes moms who work feel like failures in comparison to stay-at-home moms.
Sandberg also felt this guilt, so she relied on data to ease her mind: studies comparing exclusive maternal care vs. child care showed kids had no gap in cognitive skills, social skills and ability to maintain and build relationships. “Exclusive maternal care” was not related to any better or worse outcomes for kids.
Maybe women can’t do it all perfectly, but they can do what’s most important for them and their families. Success is making the best choices we can and accepting them. Sharing struggles authentically helps other women because they can see no one is perfect and everyone is just trying to do their best.
Are you letting a quest for perfection derail your progress?
A sign hangs in the halls of Facebook saying, “Done Is Better Than Perfect.” In your current work duties, what needs to be perfect? What needs to just get accomplished? Which one will you focus on?
In your home life, what is your number one focus? What can slide?
True equality can be achieved only when more women are in leadership positions. To get more women in these roles, men and women alike have to understand the biases and stereotypes that have been perpetuating the status quo.
It’s time for everyone to cheer on girls who want to sit at the table and lean in to their careers. Men, too, need to be supported and respected for contributing within the home and supporting their partners.
For gender equality to prevail, women have to stop sabotaging other women. When women turn on other women, we all lose. Women need to support and stick up for women in order for true equality to prosper.
For example, when Marissa Mayer became CEO of Yahoo and announced she’d be taking just a few weeks maternity leave, which she would work through, she was roundly criticized by women for setting unreasonable expectations. Her individual choice was not respected.
The “Queen Bee” phenomenon still exists. Women in power often discourage other women from gaining power, as if there’s only so much to go around. This attitude was born of self-preservation in a male-dominated workforce in the past, but still lingers. Data shows that once a woman achieves success, her capacity to see gender discrimination is actually reduced. Worse, when women view other women negatively, that viewpoint is respected because a lack of bias is assumed.
The “mommy wars,” which pit stay-at-home moms against working moms, are hurting all women. Each group judges the other because they have mixed feelings about their choices and hold that discomfort against women who remind them of the path not taken. Guilt and insecurity make us second-guess ourselves and resent each other, and this has to end.
There’s evidence that attitudes among women and men are changing. A survey found that high-level women are starting to “pay it forward” by supporting the careers of junior women.
When women help one another, we help ourselves. Acting as a coalition makes everyone stronger.
This coalition has to include men. Men need to take an active role in encouraging talented women in the workforce and advocate for their career advancement. Men also need to commit to changing the leadership ratios in organizations.
We are working toward a world where the old social norms don’t exist and both women and men have more choices based on their passions, talents and interests, not their gender.
Workplace change is our more immediate problem. There’s a lack of sick leave and vacation pay for working mothers. Maternity leave pay is not standard. Work standards are inflexible and unfair, penalizing working moms and dads. Families can go into debt or poverty as a consequence of these policies. These policies have to change.
Sandberg wrote Lean In to encourage women to dream big, power through obstacles, and reach their full potential. When more women lean in, we change the power structure of our world and expand opportunities for all. Having more women in power will lead to fairer treatment for all women.
In the future there won’t be female leaders and male leaders, there will simply be leaders.
Let’s support the choices of other women, especially when they differ from our own.
Has another woman ever sabotaged you, whether at work or as a mother? What happened? How did it make you feel?
Think of ways you can support junior women in your workplace. What can you do to help lift up another woman? Is there a policy you could campaign for that would help other women? (For example, Sandberg asked for “Pregnancy Parking” at Google.)
This book was published in 2011. Are things better for women today?
In your work life, has anything significantly changed from the situation Sandberg describes in 2011? For example, does your company have more inclusive family leave policies for moms and dads? Are female leaders seen as more acceptable?
In terms of female leadership, what’s one thing you hope will improve in the next 10 years?