Are some men too sensitive to succeed? -article

Post Reply New Topic

http://money.ca.msn.com/savings-debt/in ... d=26126908

Interesting article. Some traits I definitely identify with, and some traits are definitely associated with aspergers. I always thought there was some systemic discrimination against AS traits, in this case males, in the business/corporate world. This is a bit dismaying, but might help point one in the direction of a career/workplace that doesn't discriminate against them so much.

Yes. The problem with these men is they don't have the ability to instill confidence in them in other people, and present themselves as being content with following a lead.

I disagree that that which is keeping them down is the same glass ceiling that women have to contend with. While there are women who are too "girly" to be effective in a leadership oriented workplace, I think the "glass ceiling" was composed of perceptions that society had about women, and these perceptions were also held by other women.

25-30 years ago most people, women included, would have been uneasy about having a female lawyer, and as much as 15 years ago, I happened to be at the doctor's office when a female doctor was filling in for someone and I happened to see the sign in chart where people had to indicate which doctor they were seeing. No one wrote the female doctor's name. They wrote "lady doctor".

While I know this kind of discrimination occurs, I believe that there are also many places where sensitive men are highly valued.

I think happiness comes when we let ourselves be who we are and find where we fit.

In a sensitivity factory?

I think the article misses that being a "hard-ass" alone is not usually the best way to be a good leader. In particular niches, where you can regard & treat people as expendible, maybe so, but I don't think it's true in general.

I can't remember the names, but in "Band of Brothers" there was a military (paratroop) instructor who was extremely "hard," but in the end was passed up for a "softer" guy when it came to leading people in battle. The "soft" guy could be as hard as necessary, but also recognized the importance of things like morale, making his troops feel that he did care about them as human beings (probably wouldn't send them on a suicide mission), and how to help people with fear and such. The hard guy couldn't do that, and the people he was in charge of naturally hated him. The higher ups recognized that and never let Mr. Hard-guy lead people in battle (despite his wanting to). And the "soft" guy ended up being a very excellent leader.

OTOH, in an environment like Enron (see "The Smartest Guys in the Room" -- good movie about that), where cut-throat competition was encouraged, dominating everyone in sight and having no-conscience about it was a good thing (until it all collapsed, anyway).

@Apple_in_my_Eye: I couldn't have said it better myself!

There are places were being a "hard-ass" will get you promoted, but that doesn't mean being a "hard-ass" is actually the best way to lead, and there are other places that recognize this.

BTW "Band of Brothers" is a fantastic show!

Lols