I read this book as an assignment for a grad course. And, with a few minor alterations for context, I am providing you with the review I submitted for my grade. I figured why write two when one will serve both our purposes. So.... forward.

I approach the review of Why So Slow: The Advancement of Women (Valian, 1999) with the question ‘Why did we lose so much of her valuable information?’ She iterates exactly what I have argued exactly what I have been arguing (quite vocally, for anyone who knows me). Valian, a cognitive psychologist, brings together a comprehensive meta-analysis of studies addressing differences (if any) between men and women. Her obvious conclusion: men are not better leaders than women because men and women operate more similarly than differently. Yet, in the 13 years since Valian’s work, women still knock up against the glass ceiling. I believe the stagnation is because the subject and approach continue to have the same arguments based on the same question with the same measurement. The argument has looped around – chasing its tail. In 1999, Valian opened the question to broader inquiry by acknowledging the impact of diversity, yet surprisingly the question itself has remained stagnant and essentialized.

Valian’s Findings. Valian begins by admitting that her study is limited in scope. She states, “To date, there has been little research on the interaction of sex, ethnicity, class, and culture. Thus, although I use the terms women and men throughout, the researchers I cite have overwhelmingly studied white, middle-class, college-education American men and women” (Valian, 1999, pp. xv-xvi). She further states that as interactions between identifiers are more closely studied, and studied by individuals with a broader diversity of identification, the topic of ‘gender and leadership’ will be better served. With such a narrow study viewpoint, the schemas that guide our interactions to individuals based on stereotypes of men and women will hardly be accurate since “even minor instances of group-based bias…add up to major inequalities” (Valian, 1999, p. 3).

These oversimplifications of gender, what it is and how it operates, pit traits against each other and cause us to treat men and women in accordance with our expectations, whether or not the expectations are accurate despite gender. Gender is not biology and not a determinant of behavior. Yet, the common belief that biology is a (if not the) determinant of behavior has proven surprisingly difficult to alter or undermine. This solidification is understandable since these beliefs, or schemas, are in place to help us operate in the world. However, Valian notes that when approaching the issue of women in the workplace and deterrents to leadership, the question is always approached as a set of work improvements (e.g., child care, flex schedules, etc.) to help women meet their responsibilities. Instead, Valian states that the question needs to be addressed as a human problem as opposed to a woman problem (Valian, 1999, p. 45).

These schemas also influence how we view ourselves. We self-segregate, impose cultural expectations upon ourselves, and believe stereotypes about our behaviors. When confronted with something (e.g., an action, a way of dress, and attitude, etc.) in ourselves or others that does not fit our schema for normality, we will rationalize the behavior as being exceptional or we will ignore it. The schemas themselves remain solid unless individuals acquire a new schema to replace it (Valian, 1999, pg. 114). Valian’s work strives to define a new schema by establishing that while influences on behavior assuredly exist (e.g., culture, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.), there is very little difference in abilities related to biological sex. Approaching the question as one relating to diversity of humanness may produce a better question and introduce an alternative schema that people will readily embrace.

Implications. The question on how to solve the gender-gap in leadership is one that pits (heterosexual, white) men against (heterosexual, mostly white) women striving to meet a measure of success and leadership based on occupancy of the C-Suite. This was true in 1999 and it is true in 2012. Valian explains several times throughout the book that we “do” gender rather than “have” gender (a concept not new to fields of poststructuralist behavioral inquiry). This small statement leaves room for improvement on the tired arguments simply by refuting the notion that certain behaviors are male and certain behaviors are female. Valian goes further to point out that jobs themselves have changed their gendered roles over time at the employer’s will (Valian, 1999, pg. 114), so the workplace is not gender fixed or stagnant. The idea of ‘leadership’ needs to move as far away from male vs. female as possible.

Presently ‘women and leadership’ and/or ‘gender and leadership’ remain subcategories of inquiry in the field of leadership studies. The segregation has proved ineffectual and its limitations are recognized in our own classroom. There is an obvious lack of gender diversity (and we can argue ethnic and cultural diversity) among those who are interested in the subject. I believe most gendered males shy away from such inquiry because they are afraid of the bashing, tokenism, and ridicule they will suffer as a result of their participation. I further believe gendered males and females shy away from the topic because they are afraid they will be subjected to the ideology that all men are the enemy, or the course will be uncomfortably “touchy-feely.”
Can the subject of ‘gender and leadership’ truly embrace the concept of what gender means and welcome gendered males, as well as a host of other excluded genders, to the table? If the answer is ‘no’, I believe those studying ‘gender and leadership’ are simply reinforcing the hierarchy they are hoping to dismantle. We are failing to see just how often, and to what detrimental degree, the schemas operate. As a result, our questions and approaches to the gender gap problem have failed to evolve toward sustainable, enduring solutions.
( )

http://bactra.org/reviews/why-so-slow/ ( )

I'm enjoying this book (I'm about halfway through now), but I can't help thinking how obvious it all is. Obviously, people have subconscious prejudices causing them to treat children and adults of either gender differently. Obviously, the stereotype of "woman" is valued less than that of "man". Obviously, it takes more than one generation to change deeply traditional stereotypes. This sort of thing is right up my alley, though, which is why, having seen a copy on sale, I bought it. ( )

HQ1237 .V35 1997 (EMP)

My review is at angharad_reads:
http://www.librarything.com/catalog.php?booksim=1443167212&mode=social ( )