Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead

"The blunt truth is that men still run the world. Of the 195 independent countries in the world, only 17 are led by women. Women hold just 20 percent of seats in parliaments globally. In the United States, where we pride ourselves on liberty and justice for all, the gender division of leadership roles is not much better. Women became 50 percent of the college graduates in the United States in the early 1980s. Since then, women have slowly and steadily advanced, earning more and more of the college degrees, taking more of the entry-level jobs, and entering more fields previously dominated by men. Despite these gains, the percentage of women at the top of corporate America has barely budged over the past decade. A meager twenty-one of the Fortune 500 CEOs are women. Women hold about 14 percent of executive officer positions, 17 percent of board seats, and constitute 18 percent of our elected congressional officials. The gap is even worse for women of color, who hold just 4 percent of top corporate jobs, 3 percent of board seats, and 5 percent of congressional seats. While women continue to outpace men in educational achievement, we have ceased making real progress at the top of any industry. This means that when it comes to making the decisions that most affect our world, women's voices are not heard equally." 

Although Lean In discusses gender inequality in the workplace from multiple angles, most of Sandberg's claims ultimately relate back to the "leadership gap" outlined in this passage; as Sandberg notes, the current balance of power is not what one might expect of a truly equal society, particularly given that women's educational achievements make them, if anything, overqualified for top jobs. Throughout the rest of the book, then, Sandberg will demonstrate how gender norms that discourage women from being ambitious, daring, and assertive help to explain gender inequality in politics and private industry.

"A truly equal world would be one where women ran half our countries and companies and men ran half our homes. I believe that this would be a better world. The laws of economics and many studies of diversity tell us that if we tapped the entire pool of human resources and talent, our collective performance would improve." 

While most feminists would agree on the importance of gender equality, not all would agree on what exactly gender equality means; some, for instance, would argue that a fifty-fifty division of social roles doesn't matter as long as all roles are equally respected, while others would argue that dismantling hierarchies based on class and race are central to securing gender inequality. Sandberg's definition of equality corresponds to her largely liberal feminist stance: in the absence of gender norms, women could and should occupy about half of society's traditional seats of power. In other words, Sandberg wants to ensure that women have equal status within society as it currently exists, but does not think major structural changes to society are necessary. Her argument about "collective performance" speaks to this, since her point is that the full inclusion of women would improve on American society's current strengths.

"My grandmother Rosalind Einhorn was born exactly fifty-two years before I was, on August 28, 1917. Like many poor Jewish families in the boroughs of New York City, hers lived in a small, crowded apartment close to their relatives. Her parents, aunts, and uncles addressed her male cousins by their given names, but she and her sister were referred to only as 'Girlie.’" 

Sandberg's family appears repeatedly in Lean In, with figures like her mother and grandmother often serving as role models: despite the double drawback of being born poor and a girl, for instance, Rosalind Einhorn grew up to become a resourceful and independent woman who played a key role in developing her husband's business. The passage also functions as a reminder of how far women have come since the early 20thcentury. It is striking, for instance, that Rosalind's relatives referred to her and her sister interchangeably, as if neither had an identity of her own. Since Lean In celebrates the right of each individual woman to make her own choices, Sandberg likely finds this reduction of all women to their gender ("Girlie") particularly troubling.

"From a very early age, boys are encouraged to take charge and offer their opinions. Teachers interact more with boys, call on them more frequently, and ask them more questions. Boys are also more likely to call out answers, and when they do, teachers usually listen to them. When girls call out, teachers often scold them for breaking the rules and remind them to raise their hands if they want to speak." 

One key claim Sandberg makes in Lean In is that girls and women grow up internalizing messages about "appropriate" female behavior. In many instances, like the one Sandberg describes in the passage above, society penalizes women for possessing traits it views as acceptable or even commendable in men; since these traits also tend to be those that help people succeed in professional life, the end result is that women never learn the skills they need to advance in their careers. This excerpt also underscores another point Sandberg returns to again and again in Lean In: that sexism often operates in subtle or unconscious ways. It's unlikely that most of the teachers in the study Sandberg cites intended to reinforce gender stereotypes, but it's possible to act in sexist ways without being aware of it.

"And it's not just women who are tough on themselves. Colleagues and the media are also quick to credit external factors for a woman's achievements. When Facebook filed to go public, The New York Times ran an article that kindly reminded me—and everyone else—that I had 'been lucky' and 'had powerful mentors along the way.' Journalists and bloggers rose up to highlight the double standard, pointing out that The New York Times rarely ascribed men's success to having been lucky. But the Times didn't say anything that I had not already told myself a thousand times. At every stage of my career, I have attributed my success to luck, hard work, and help from others." 

Sandberg uses this anecdote to illustrate (and lend a personal touch to) the studies and statistics she cites on women's lack of self-confidence; as the above story illustrates, this self-doubt does not develop in a vacuum, but is instead an internalization of societal norms and expectations. It is also interesting to note that the tendency to underestimate women often manifests as a tendency to attribute their success to external factors—specifically, help from other people. Although Sandberg does not explicitly say so, it seems likely that this practice stems in part from the idea that women are more community-oriented and less individualistic, which Sandberg goes on to discuss later in the book.

"But I also know that in order to continue to grow and challenge myself, I have to believe in my own abilities. I still face situations that I fear are beyond my capabilities. I still have days when I feel like a fraud. And I still sometimes find myself spoken over and discounted while men sitting next to me are not. But now I know how to take a deep breath and keep my hand up. I have learned to sit at the table." 

Throughout Lean In, Sandberg is upfront about the fact that she still struggles with many ingrained sexist ideas. In this passage, for instance, she admits that she has not entirely gotten over her self-doubt, and it's not clear that she ever will. Ultimately, however, Sandberg suggests that this doesn't matter: regardless of what women have learned to think or feel about themselves, they can consciously push past those ideas in order to achieve their goals. This excerpt is also a good example of the way Sandberg uses catchy phrases and images to sum up her argument; here, she brings back the symbol of the table from the beginning of the chapter to ensure that her message sticks in readers' minds.

"In addition, there are huge benefits to communal effort in and of itself. By definition, all organizations consist of people working together. Focusing on the team leads to better results for the simple reason that well-functioning groups are stronger than individuals. Teams that work together well outperform those that don't. And success feels better when it's shared with others. So perhaps one positive result of having more women at the top is that our leaders will have been trained to care more about the well-being of others." 

The above passage follows Sandberg's discussion of how women can sidestep perceived selfishness by linking their arguments and concerns to those of a group. Although Sandberg recognizes that there may be drawbacks to playing to stereotypes in this way, she ultimately suggests that the benefits outweigh the dangers. Here, for instance, Sandberg argues that her advice could usher in a more empathic generation of leaders, hinting that our understanding of work needs to move in a more communal direction regardless.

"As Lori describes it, ladders are limiting—people can move up or down, on or off. Jungle gyms offer more creative exploration. There's only one way to get to the top of a ladder, but there are many ways to get to the top of a jungle gym. The jungle gym model benefits everyone, but especially women who might be starting careers, switching careers, getting blocked by external barriers, or reentering the workforce after taking time off. The ability to forge a unique path with occasional dips, detours, and even dead ends presents a better chance for fulfillment. Plus, a jungle gym provides great views for many people, not just those at the top. On a ladder, most climbers are stuck staring at the butt of the person above."

The jungle gym as a metaphor for professional progress is one of the most prominent symbols in Lean In. Because it allows for "more creative exploration," Sandberg argues in this passage that the jungle gym is a potentially useful analogy for women, who may face challenges and setbacks at work that men do not. Sandberg also uses the symbol of the jungle gym to temper the individualism of her overall message, suggesting that the analogy recasts the workplace into an environment where everyone can win, including those who don't make it all the way to the top: "A jungle gym provides great views for many people."

"I try to set more personal goals for learning new skills in the next eighteen months. It's often painful, but I ask myself, 'How can I improve?' If I am afraid to do something, it is usually because I am not good at it or perhaps am too scared even to try. After working at Google for more than four years, managing well over half of the company's revenues, I was embarrassed to admit that I had never negotiated a business deal. Not one. So I gathered my courage and came clean to my boss, Omid Kordestani, then head of sales and business development. Omid was willing to give me a chance to run a small deal team." 

One reason Sandberg may wish to blur the professional/personal divide is that, for her, professional and personal development are intertwined: the skill Sandberg discusses in this passage has obvious workplace applications, but she talks about it as a "personal goal" that's part of an overall plan for self-improvement. Relatedly, passages like this one, which emphasize the importance of growth as an individual, echo Sandberg's advice about seeking out work environments with "potential for growth" (58). As Sandberg describes them, both personal and professional life should be constantly evolving toward something better.

"Women are also more reluctant to apply for promotions even when deserved, often believing that good job performance will naturally lead to rewards. Carol Frohlinger and Deborah Kolb, founders of Negotiating Women, Inc., describe this as the 'Tiara Syndrome,' where women 'expect that if they keep doing their job well someone will notice them and place a tiara on their head.' In a perfect meritocracy, tiaras would be doled out to the deserving, but I have yet to see one floating around an office. Hard work and results should be recognized by others, but when they aren't, advocating for oneself becomes necessary. As discussed earlier, this must be done with great care. But it must be done…Do not wait for power to be offered. Like that tiara, it might never materialize. And anyway, who wears a tiara on a jungle gym?"(

In the above passage, Sandberg associates passivity and hesitation with stereotypically "feminine" imagery (in this case, a tiara) in order to make a point: waiting around for recognition is just as inappropriate in a competitive workplace as wearing a tiara would be on a rough-and-tumble jungle gym. Arguably, this advice contradicts a claim Sandberg makes just a few pages later when she says that women who "excel" will naturally attract mentors without seeking them out (68). Perhaps, however, this tension simply illustrates Sandberg's warning that "advocating for oneself…must be done with great care"; for professional women, there is a very fine line between self-assertion and behavior that is likely to come across as pushy or selfish.

"In part, we've brought this on ourselves. For the past decade, talk of mentorship and sponsorship has been topic number one at any women's career seminar. It is the focus of blogs, newspaper articles, and research reports. Many of these young women are responding to the often repeated advice that if they want to scale the corporate ladder, they need to find mentors (people who will advise them) as well as sponsors (people who will use their influence to advocate for them)." 

Although Sandberg stresses the importance of mentorship throughout Lean In, she also hints that the conversation surrounding mentorship can have sexist overtones. Sandberg goes on to claim that women often interpret the mentor relationship as one where they are "dependent" on a more powerful teacher, so the fact that mentorship is particularly central to women's career seminars is significant; perhaps this is another instance of unconscious assumptions about gender roles shaping the way women experience their professional lives (66).

"Junior women and senior men often avoid engaging in mentoring or sponsoring relationships out of fear of what others might think. A study published by the Center for Work-Life Policy and the Harvard Business Review reported that 64 percent of men at the level of vice president and above are hesitant to have a one-on-one meeting with a more junior woman. For their part, half of the junior women avoided close contact with senior men. This evasiveness must end. Personal connections lead to assignments and promotions, so it needs to be okay for men and women to spend informal time together the same way men can…And everyone involved has to make sure to behave professionally so women—and men—feel safe in all settings."

One structural obstacle to women's professional advancement is the preexisting gender gap in senior positions. The extent of the problem, Sandberg implies, requires an equally far-reaching solution: a shift in the way society as a whole thinks about relationships between men and women. Sandberg argues that some of the necessary changes can take place on an individual level; she urges men in positions of power, for instance, to be proactive about hiring and promoting women. Nevertheless, the above passage makes it clear that there are no easy answers to such a complex problem; it's debatable, for instance, whether the junior women Sandberg mentions are under any obligation to act less "evasively" given the threat of sexual harassment.

"Secretary Rubin was also aware of the dangers of blindly following leaders, or in his case, being blindly followed. Before becoming Treasury secretary, Rubin served as co-chairman of the board of Goldman Sachs. At the end of his first week as co-chairman, he noticed that Goldman was heavily invested in gold. He asked someone why the firm had taken such a big position. The startled employee answered, 'That was you, sir.' 'Me?' Rubin replied. Apparently, the day before he had been taking his initial tour of the trading floor and commented, 'Gold looks interesting.' This got repeated as 'Rubin likes gold,' and someone spent millions of dollars to please the new boss."

Although Sandberg states emphatically that honesty is essential to communication, she also notes that openness can be elusive in hierarchical workplace environments. Earlier in Chapter Six, Sandberg cites studies suggesting that this is a result of lower-level employees' fear of being penalized for their honesty, but this passage suggests that other factors may be at play as well: when someone is in a position of authority, what he says may carry more power, which can actually change the (perceived) meaning of his words. Ultimately, Sandberg will argue that this kind of misunderstanding is a "two-way street," which echoes her belief that everyone has his or her own truth; a person with power over others, for instance, has a responsibility to think about her subordinates' perspectives and the way her own words are likely to be interpreted(85). Nevertheless, episodes like this one suggest that there may be limits to the usefulness of thinking about communication in terms of personal truths, at least in situations where there are large power disparities.

"It has been an evolution, but I am now a true believer in bringing our whole selves to work. I no longer think people have a professional self for Mondays through Fridays and a real self for the rest of the time. That type of separation probably never existed, and in today's era of individual expression, where people constantly update their Facebook status and tweet their every move, it makes even less sense. Instead of putting on some kind of fake 'all-work persona,' I think we benefit from expressing our truth, talking about personal situations, and acknowledging that professional decisions are often emotionally driven." 

One recurring theme in Lean In is the artificiality of the traditional separation of work from life. Sandberg argues that this division is particularly difficult for women to maintain, not only because they bear the brunt of housework and child care, but also because(unlike most boys and men) they generally grow up encouraged to express their emotions. In this passage, however, Sandberg makes a more general argument in favor of rethinking the work-life divide, noting that it is simply impractical in a world with social media. Furthermore, Sandberg suggests, people will be happier when workplaces recognize them in their totality, as "whole selves" complete with emotions and idiosyncrasies.

"But when it comes to integrating career and family, planning too far in advance can close doors rather than open them. I have seen this happen over and over. Women rarely make one big decision to leave the workforce. Instead, they make a lot of small decisions along the way, making accommodations and sacrifices that they believe will be required to have a family. Of all the ways women hold themselves back, perhaps the most pervasive is that they leave before they leave."

Sandberg's main argument in Chapter Seven is that women tend to leave the workforce not so much because of the difficulties involved in balancing work and family, but instead because they unnecessarily limit themselves in an effort to keep their jobs. According to Sandberg, this is in turn the result of overexposure to stereotypes about working women: women hear so much about the impossibility of being both a professional and a working wife/mother that they overcompensate in the years leading up to starting a family. In other words, women's tendency to "leave before they leave" is yet another example of the negative influence gender norms have on women in the workforce. Sandberg's warnings about "planning too far in advance," meanwhile, recall her earlier arguments about the jungle gym, and the importance of flexibility and risk-taking.

"Although pundits and politicians, usually male, often claim that motherhood is the most important and difficult work of all, women who take time out of the workforce pay a big career penalty…Average annual earnings decline by 30 percent after two to three years, which is the average amount of time that professional women off-ramp from the workforce. If society truly valued the work of caring for children, companies and institutions would find ways to reduce these steep penalties and help parents combine career and family responsibilities. All too often rigid work schedules, lack of paid family leave, and expensive or undependable child care derail women's best efforts. Governmental and company policies such as paid personal time off, affordable high-quality child care, and flexible work practices would serve families, and society, well." 

Although Sandberg urges women who can to "keep a foot on the gas pedal" in the period leading up to motherhood, she also argues that broader societal changes could make balancing work and family easier for all women (103). In this passage, for instance, she argues that women would benefit from policies like flexible scheduling and paid leave. More implicitly, Sandberg also suggests that the way society thinks about motherhood needs to change; instead of simply paying lip-service to motherhood's importance, Sandberg suggests that we should talk about motherhood as actual "work." This is another way in which Sandberg seeks to blur the boundaries between the personal and the professional, as well as an instance in which she seems to be defending the value of stereotypically-feminine values and tasks.

"There may be an evolutionary basis for one parent knowing better what to put in a child's lunch. Women who breast-feed are arguably baby's first lunch box. But even if mothers are more naturally inclined toward nurturing, fathers can match that skill with knowledge and effort. If women want to succeed more at work and if men want to succeed more at home, these expectations have to be challenged."

Throughout much of Lean In, Sandberg seems to endorse the idea that gender is socially constructed, drawing on both research and personal experience to explore the ways in which we internalize gender norms. In this passage, however, Sandberg acknowledges that women and men may have different innate tendencies, but suggests that that does not affect her overall point, since biological tendencies can be overcome. This speaks, in part, to how strongly Sandberg feels about the need to eliminate traditional gender roles. It's also a good example of a rhetorical strategy Sandberg frequently uses in Lean In: anticipating and rebutting a potential objection to her arguments.

"Fathers who want to drop out of the workforce entirely and devote themselves to child care can face extremely negative social pressure…My friend Peter Noone spent several years as a stay-at-home father and found that while people claimed to respect his choice, he did not feel welcomed into the social circles in his neighborhood. As a man at the playground or in the not-so-tactfully-named 'Mommy and Me' classes, strangers viewed him with a certain amount of distrust." 

Although Lean In centers largely on the need to free women from archaic gender roles, it also mentions some of the ways in which these gender roles can limit men. Here, for instance, Sandberg argues that societal views of masculinity discourage otherwise caring fathers from playing an active role in their children's development. This is a pragmatic point for her to make, since one of her goals in Lean In is to persuade more men to take part in the fight against gender inequality; according to Sandberg, men should care about feminism because they themselves have a stake in it.

"True partnership in our homes does more than just benefit couples today; it also sets the stage for the next generation. The workplace has evolved more than the home in part because we enter it as adults, so each generation experiences a new dynamic. But the homes we create tend to be more rooted in our childhoods. My generation grew up watching our mothers do the child care and housework while our fathers earned the wages. It's too easy for us to get stuck in these patterns." 

Sandberg sprinkles anecdotes from her family history throughout Lean In, in part to make the book more engaging and personal. However, Sandberg's contentions in this passage suggest that she is also offering these stories as evidence of the role that upbringing plays in determining children's attitudes toward work, family, and gender; implicitly, Sandberg suggests that she might not be where she is if she hadn't had both the male and female role models that she did.

"I deeply understand the fear of appearing to be putting our families above our careers. Mothers don't want to be perceived as less dedicated to their jobs than men or women without family responsibilities. We overwork to overcompensate. Even in workplaces that offer reduced or flextime arrangements, people fear that reducing their hours will jeopardize their career prospects. And this is not just a perception problem. Employees who make use of flexible work policies are often penalized and seen as less committed than their peers. And those penalties can be greater for mothers in professional jobs."

In Chapter Nine, Sandberg modifies her general advice to women to "lean in" by cautioning that it is sometimes appropriate to back off: since no one can actually "have it all," the idea that there are no limits on what women can accomplish personally and professionally just places undue pressure on them to be perfect. As Sandberg notes in this passage, however, compromising can present its own set of challenges, since workplaces may demand their employees' total attention. Furthermore, women are at a double disadvantage, since employers with biased views on gender may already suspect women of being less committed to their work than their male counterparts. Ultimately, then, this is another passage that hints at the need for a broad shift in societal views and attitudes.

"Staying quiet and fitting in may have been all the first generations of women who entered corporate America could do; in some cases, it might still be the safest path. But this strategy is not paying off for women as a group. Instead, we need to speak out, identifying the barriers that are holding women back, and find solutions." 

The above passage touches on several of the tensions present throughout Lean In. For Sandberg, the goal of feminism is ultimately to eliminate gender norms and make gender a non-issue. Ironically, however, this means that we must pay even more attention to gender in the short term; because inequalities and prejudices so often operate silently and unconsciously, correcting them requires speaking out about them. More implicitly, the passage also deals with the question of whether it is more important to support individual women's choices or choices that benefit women as a group. Sandberg is generally a firm believer in personal choice, and much of Lean In is premised on the idea that women's decisions as individuals go hand in hand with women's progress as a group. In this passage, however, Sandberg suggests that what is "right" for an individual woman may not pay off for women in general.

"For decades, we have focused on giving women the choice to work inside or outside the home. We have celebrated the fact that women have the right to make this decision, and rightly so. But we have to ask ourselves if we have become so focused on supporting personal choices that we're failing to encourage women to aspire to leadership. It is time to cheer on girls and women who want to sit at the table, seek challenges, and lean in to their careers. Today, despite all of the gains we have made, neither men nor women have real choice." 

By and large, Lean In defends women's right to make "personal choices" regardless of what other people think. As Sandberg herself says, though, there is a "conflict" embedded within the idea of choice: "we all make different ones," and we may not agree with the choices other people make (166). The above passage captures this tension, because while Sandberg wants to support women's choices as individuals, she also strongly feels that those choices are often the result of societal conditioning, and that they may be harming women as a group. Ultimately, Sandberg suggests that we should err on the side of "validating" one another's decisions, but the question of whether there are limits on or drawback to this kind of personal freedom are never totally resolved in the text (168).

"I know that for many women, getting to the top of their organization is far from their primary focus. My intention is not to exclude them or ignore their valid concerns. I believe that if more women lean in, we can change the power structure of our world and expand opportunities for all. More female leadership will lead to fairer treatment for all women. Shared experience forms the basis of empathy and, in turn, can spark the institutional changes we need…Research already suggests that companies with more women in leadership roles have better work-life policies, smaller gender gaps in executive compensation, and more women in midlevel management."

As Sandberg draws to a close, she reiterates her belief that increasing the number of women in positions of power will ultimately benefit all women, citing studies that suggest that female leaders do tend to be more accommodating of their female employees. Nevertheless, some schools of feminist thought might question Sandberg's assumption that all women have "shared experiences [that] form the basis of empathy"; arguably, the experiences of working-class women or women of color have as much or more to do with class and race than they do with gender. The extent to which readers accept Sandberg’s basic argument, then, will depend to a large degree on whether they feel that women should set aside their differences and focus on their similarities, as Sandberg advises in this chapter.