imp@crayview.msi.umn.edu (Chuck Lukaszewski) (08/03/88)
I am really excited about this group. I really have little desire to post to soc.women because it seems completely out of control. There is a level of academic serenity that I hope we can maintain. Trish asks some interesting questions about organizational structure. It seems to me, however, that there are two 'standard' organizational structures: there is the pyramid-like business structure, but I think we must include the academic structure, which I would characterize as an inverted-pyramid. The academic environment is as crucial as business to this group and many women who post here have at least one foot in that arena. In addition, there is a third category of organizational structure that I would label 'maverick,' and in it I would place companies like Apple and 3M. This category describes those _businesses_ that have chosen to vary _significantly_ from the standard pyramid approach. Let me talk briefly about categories two (2) and three (3): Whereas in business (1) the competition is fiercest at the top and entry-level positions abound (like keypunch operators), academics are distinct in that the real competition is at the entry level (remember all the "weed-out" courses like freshman physics) and the goal is tenure. As a result, businesses have a small elite of controllers, and universities are top-heavy. Don't get me wrong: there is competition in every level in (1/2/3), but I'm talking about the competition that eliminates players. In academia, there are real differences in the _type_ of competition once you are out of undergraduate- land. We've heard testimonials from women in business, but not a one yet from women who are in academics to stay. I think that input would be valuable. And, I will advance a thesis: women on technical career paths are more likely to be repressed/supressed/inhibited in academia than in business (1/3). I have several reasons for this opinion. First, academics are top-heavy with men, and (though it's outside the scope of this letter I think men in power feel threatened by technically-competent women (how's that, Cheryl?)) they can literally control your success or failure (women or men). Because you need advisors to sign off on this or that, and you need thesis panels, and you need PAPERS, there is a significant degree of dependence on the MAN with TENURE. Unfortunately, many of them decide to require certain ser- vices in exchange (that it happens is sickening to me -- that it is so wide- spread is almost painful). You also pretty much have to stay at one location for each stage of your education all the way to the doctoral level and beyond. This limits severely one's options. Business may put some of the same temptations in front of managers, but the woman (or man, but I guess we're emphasizing women here) usually, usually, USUALLY, has more options. There are more avenues of legal recourse should something go wrong, and I would assert that there is less of a 'cover-up-for my-male-buddy-who-f**ked-his-graduate-student' syndrome because in a pyramid structure people who are bent on success and the presidency are unscrupulous in revealing such transgressions. There are fewer options in the (1) style of businesses than in the (3) style for women. My experience in (1) is that those women who are successful have had to adopt 'male' characteristics in their respective trips to the top. For example, presentational trainers often comment on how successful women phase inflection out of their voices, giving way to the Henry Kissinger style of communication. Similarly, their voices deepen. I would invoke the male stereotype of competitiveness here, too, and add that my observation on having dealt directly with many high-level female executives is that they tend to analyze business transactions, hirings and firings (of women AND men) and corporate life in very similar ways. Apple Computer and 3M are two companies I am very familiar with that I have to put in a class by themselves. They operate very differently from each other, but both have 'chucked' some of the standard business (1) logic. In the case of 3M, there is a dual pyramid: one for technical people and one for adminstrators. The twist here is that they freely allow migration between the two at identical levels (i.e. no demotions). Let's say you are Joe Schmoe in research lab X and you develop post-it notes. As this idea becomes seen as a potential product, you are kept in charge of it. Should it survive testing, you are given the option of continuing with its initial marketing, or going back to the lab to do more work. If you want, you can follow that product all the way of the ladder, and cross over into the mgmt side. This has worked very well for 3M. I'll save Apple for a future post, as this is getting long. At this point, it is REALLY IMPORTANT to contradict the generality of an earlier post that said that 'computer companies were/are seen as different from standard companies and offer more alternative to women.' The poster mentioned Apple. This is CLEARLY a case of hasty generalization. There are major and minor computer companies of type (1) and type (3). Apple is a (3) while Micro- soft is a (1). IBM is a (1). Computer Associates (anybody catch the article in Forbes about how it gobbles up little software companies, spits out the programmers and makes lots of money off of their programs?) is a (1). Sun I think is a (3), but I don't know enough about it. I am, however, really impressed with the number of really TECHNICAL women (and not just user services people) that I know of/hear from at Sun. With inflation, I guess that's worth $0.03... Chuck hasty guy who invented post-it notes
gazit%ganelon.usc.edu@oberon.USC.EDU (Salit) (08/06/88)
In article <12938@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> imp@crayview.msi.umn.edu (Chuck Lukaszewski) writes: >I have several reasons for this opinion. First, academics are top-heavy >with men, and (though it's outside the scope of this letter I think men in >power feel threatened by technically-competent women (how's that, Cheryl?)) >they can literally control your success or failure (women or men). Because >you need advisors to sign off on this or that, and you need thesis panels, >and you need PAPERS, The most important conferences in theory of computer science are FOCS and STOC. The committee for STOC 89 is: Fan Chung, Cynthia Dwork, Faith Fich, Shafi Goldwasser, Debbie Joseph, Maria Klawe, Nancy Lynch, Christos Papadimitriou, Vijaya Ramachandran, Eva Tardos, Avi Wigderson and Frances Yao. Two men and ten women. Somehow I'm not so sure that this committee is going to reject PAPERS just because they were sent by women. (BTW I'm not so sure that this committee is going to reject PAPERS just because they were sent by men. There is something which is call "academic integrity".) Hillel gazit%ganelon.usc.edu@oberon.usc.edu