Too many men, men, men, men…

Today the Wall Street Journal ran a story about President Obama’s micromanagement style, illustrated with a picture by Pete Souza of President Obama at a briefing before a health-care meeting with Senate Democrats in June.  It’s a photo of six men and Obama, with various looks of consternation, fatigue, frustration, skepticism on their faces.  No women.

On another page, the WSJ ran a story, “Fraud Doesn’t Always Happen to Someone Else” by Karen Blumenthal.  This article noted that “The typical investment scam victim is an optimistic married man in his later 50s who has a higher-than-average knowledge of financial matters and deep confidence in his own judgment, [essentially, a description of the Obama team, and the BushII/Cheney team, and the Clinton team, et.al.]…according to research funded by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s Finra Investor Education Foundation.”

The article went on to say, “Women were more cautious and asked too many questions, he [a conman] said, prompting an office maxim, “Don’t pitch to the b–.”

Another interactive photo shows that there is one woman, out of five, on the Obama economic advisory team.  That’s not enough.

Until we have a balance of genders at the highest level of power, we are doomed to ‘doing what we’re doing’ and ‘getting what we’re getting.’

As politically incorrect as it may be, there are generalizable differences between the way men’s minds work and the way women’s minds work; the outcomes that receive the highest priority, the way we communicate, and the role that preserving personal power and authority plays in addressing issues, are all gender influenced.  I wrote earlier about the observation that the men on Wall Street were much more vulnerable to the clinical mania, euphoria and risk taking that led to the financial meltdown.  Men are also more vulnerable to the calls of hierarchy (Strut your stuff when you’re the alpha male, and run with the herd if you’re a beta).   We hear that President Obama solicits alternative points of view, but in a group of men with similar backgrounds, just how far outside the fold are they likely to stray?

The best decisions come out of aggregating the wisdom of a broad base of independent thinkers.  Groupthink is a very high risk in Washington, where loyalty often trumps other values (such as competence in the Bush II/Cheney administration.  (The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki (2004).   It is critically important for President Obama to seek out questioners, challengers to his men, men, men, men thinking, and new information.  President Obama promised he would do that.  So, where is the gender balance in his circle of advisors?

One woman in five is a start.  However, when outnumbered, women’s communication style can hamper their ability to get their points heard, and that loss disadvantages the outcome.  (Talking from 9 to 5: Women and Men at Work by Deborah Tannen (1995)).  By consciously and deliberately assuring a balance of men and women in all advisory councils, Obama could take a major step toward more effective decision-making.

Photo by Pete Souza/White House