Do women wimp out?

There's been keen coverage of an event in college women's softball--probably you've heard the story, coverage here. Last inning home run hit puts losing team ahead, but hitter/baserunner injures her knee and is unable to make the rounds of the bases. Members of the opposing team carry her around the bases, ensuring that her home run counts, ensuring that their own team will lose and that they are eliminated from payoffs. The incident sparked a firestorm of controversial commentary (see WSJ Independent Street blog)--what began as a tug-at-your-heartstrings sportsmanship story was often condemned as a reason women do not attain the highest levels of business leadership--a misplaced and dangerous sense of "fairness" that undermines our ability to compete and actually teaches us bad lessons in sportsmanship.

Wow--I've really taken that to heart. When I first heard the story I thought it was an extraordinary lesson in selfless generosity, but what if it was just stupid? And how could I learn from the dialog?

I'd like to think that the women who spontaneously performed an act of kindness will reap rewards in the future. I mean if it were just up to me, I would hire them. I would trust them. I would put them in charge of a sticky joint venture. I would believe in their ability to take daily conflicts to a higher level of meaning where they can be resolved gracefully.

But what do you think? Is the economy hungering for more generosity, or are women just wimping out?

Influential Business Thinkers NOT Women?

Wendy Bounds blogged on the WSJ's Top 20 Influential Business Thinkers, none of whom are women. [Ayn Rand, Where Are You? May 5]

Does the problem lie with how we define "influential?" Is it more about "thinkers?" Or is it just about differences between women and men in business?

Lots of commentators on that blog have their ideas, from profound to ridiculous, but its worth thinking about.

If women are great whale hunters--and I believe we are-- we have to be more aggressive in calling attention to our acomplishments.

Men are still more rewarded and respected for 20th-century economy strengths--win/lose competition focused on eliminating enemies, top-down management or employees, American xenophobia. That economy is dead, and women will prove to be the winners in a new economy that demands joint ventures, embracing partners in the emerging economies, inspiring employee loyalty.

What do you think? Do men not want to listen to women? Do women prefer listening to men? There's money on the table here!

A Troubling Story

Cover story in New York magazine, May 5 2008 issue: THEY FIRED THE MOST POWERFUL WOMAN ON WALL STREET. [http://nymag.com/news/business/46476/]

It's a gripping and troubling account of Zoe Cruz, who on the eve of becoming CEO of Morgan Stanley, was summarily fired by the retiring CEO who had been her mentor.

Reporter Joe Hagan's story is pretty even-handed and instructive. Zoe Cruz is clearly a whale hunter -- doing the biggest deals she could imagine, doing them successfully, and parlaying that success into the likelihood of becoming the first women to head a major Wall Street firm. Then a series of events take her from heir apparent to scapegoat. And make no mistake--it's very relevant to her being a women. Friends and foes alike argue about whether she was too strident or too soft!

Title of the article is Only the Men Survive. We have to change that. Please read this article and then post your comments here--every business woman and our mothers, daughters, and partners need to try to make sense of this one.