So have you seen the latest extent of so-called political correctness? Allow me to quote the current campaign, initiated by Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, and supported by Anna Maria Chávez, CEO of Girl Scouts of the USA, who wrote the following last week in a special to CNN:
“Assertive and bold, strong and courageous.
These are the words we use when we think of our leaders — the characteristics we look for when we elect politicians, vet CEOs or select captains of sports teams.
Yet throughout history, these terms have been primarily applied when men have occupied leadership roles. We expect men to lead and assert themselves, and we encourage and reward these behaviors when young boys exhibit them.
So why is it when a young girl exhibits these exact same characteristics, we often resort to a different word to describe her behavior? A word that says to young girls: These are not the behaviors we expect from you. Why do we call her ‘bossy’?…
When we refer to a girl who demonstrates leadership qualities as ‘bossy,’ she receives a message she is doing something wrong, that somehow, the same behaviors we praise and reward in boys are inappropriate for her, and we are limiting the scope of her potential as a result.”
Banbossy.com (yes, an actual web site) makes the assumption that “bossy” is tied to effective leadership… that “bossy” is the trait others are identifying that is similar to a positive strength in a man… that “bossy” is synonymous with assertive and bold, strong and courageous.
I have tremendous respect for Chávez and Sandberg and those such as Beyonce and Condoleezza Rice, who have jumped aboard the rhetorical bandwagon. It’s true, as they eloquently assert, that words can be limiting — that they can shape our perceptions and either encourage ambition or limit our awareness of potential. No one likes to be called “bossy.” No one likes to be called anything seemingly derogatory.
Yet there’s a bit of a glaring challenge: some people actually are “bossy.” Some people actually are fond of giving others orders; some are domineering, overbearing, authoritarian, choleric, controlling, dictatorial, imperious, and at least one other “B” word that I’d prefer not to post. There are “bossy” men, and there are “bossy” women. And the primary challenge that potentially bursts the bubble of the current campaign is that being “bossy” is not synonymous with positive, effective leadership; being “bossy” is not an accurate measure of strength or effectiveness. To this frequent female boss, being “bossy” means something else (something more synonymous with that other “B” word), and it is not a necessary nor effective trait for anyone’s leadership, especially if there exists any authentic attempt to actually win friends and influence people.
While I believe the motive of Sheryl Sandberg’s initial campaign was rooted in positive encouragement, the challenge is that it misses the mark. Once again in our seemingly, constantly watered-down society, we seek to ban something in order to avoid dealing with the reality. Instead of acknowledging that there are good female leaders and poor female leaders — just as there are good male leaders and poor male leaders — and that there are “bossy” and non-bossy professionals, the focus is aimed at the use of the word. That seems off to me. Not all men nor women are good at what they do. Being “bossy” is often a part of that.
Chávez states that the “Ban Bossy” campaign promotes “equality.” My sense is that it instead promotes an ignorance to the fact that “bossy-ness” exists… and yes, among both men and women.
Respectfully,
AR