赢在学校，输在职场——女性的困境

2013-04-29ByGaranceFranke-Ruta/邓琛

新东方英语 2013年9期

By Garance Franke-Ruta 译 / 邓琛

学生时代，女生的成绩通常要比男生好。认真、刻苦、踏实、执着——这些都是女生出奇制胜的法宝。然而，在她们走出象牙塔、踏入职场的那一刻，所谓的法宝似乎开始失效，女性渐渐丧失了原有的优势。面对不利的竞争形势，女性反而更加迷信高学历的作用。殊不知，教育并非万能的灵药，好成绩也不再是可靠的保障。

In her new book， Lean In， Sheryl Sandberg1）， Facebooks chief operating officer， recounts a warning she delivered to Harvard Business School students in 2011. “About one-third of the women in this audience will be working full-time” in 15 years， she told them. “And almost all of you will be working for the guy you are sitting next to.”

Surveying the stubborn gender inequalities of the early-21st-century workplace， Sandberg has written what might best be described as a cross between a feminist treatise2） and an airport business book， in which she advocates for structural changes to make corporate America more hospitable to women—particularly mothers. She also issues a bracing3） call for women to propel themselves ever higher， take more risks， speak up， negotiate， and pull a seat up to the table. But for all the persuasive parts of her argument， a vexing4） contradiction remains mostly unaddressed. In one important arena， women have already， to borrow Sandbergs phrase， been leaning in： school. Women surpassed men as a percentage of college students in the late 1980s， and by 2009 had become the majority of masters-degree students and doctoral candidates. The majority of Americans older than 25 with college degrees are， today， women. Yet just 4.2 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs are women. So why hasnt womens success in the academy led them to more leadership positions in the work world？

Forty years ago， Title IX5） mandated equality for women. But it did so only in schools. In the decades since Congress passed this law， which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education， women have flocked to the ivory tower. There， enforced equal standing is coupled with criteria for success that are transparent， and that reward industriousness. Many parts of the work world， by comparison， are still plagued by sexism， or reward a particular sort of self-promotion that many women shy away from6）. Studies have repeatedly shown that women get more criticism and less praise in the workplace than men do. They are offered lower starting salaries， and are judged more negatively by prospective7） employers than are men with identical backgrounds. And unlike in school， the burden of fighting discrimination rests almost entirely on an individual， who must initiate grievance procedures8） against her boss.

Just as important， the behaviors that school rewards—studying， careful preparation， patient climbing from one level to the next—seem to give women an advantage academically， judging from the fact that they get higher grades in college than men do. Yet these behaviors arent necessarily so helpful in the workplace. Out in the work world， people hire and promote based on personality as much as on formal qualifications， and very often networking can trump grinding away9）. As Whitney Johnson and Tara Mohr put it in an article on the Harvard Business Reviews Web site earlier this year， “The very skills that propel women to the top of the class in school are earning us middle-of-the-pack marks in the workplace.”

It can take young women years to realize that the professional world is less of a meritocracy10） than the school world， and that the strategies that lead to success in one realm may not be enough to master the other. In the meantime， many suffer from tiara syndrome—the belief that if they keep doing their job well， someone will notice them and place a tiara on their head. This tends not to happen.

Women begin to fall behind the moment they leave school. Even controlling for11） their college major and professional field， they wind up12） being paid 7 percent less than men， on average， one year after graduating， according to a 2012 study by the American Association of University Women. One reason is that they take fewer risks right out of the gate： they are much less likely to negotiate their first salary—57 percent of men do this， versus 7 percent of women. Compared with their male peers， women also set less ambitious goals. A McKinsey study published last April found that 36 percent of male employees at major companies hope to be top executives， compared with just 18 percent of female employees. Ive heard countless stories that reflect this same divide. Stephanie Mencimer， now a reporter at Mother Jones13）， told me that when she was a hiring editor at The Washington Monthly14）， she marveled at how， among comparably credentialed15） applicants just out of school， women were more likely to apply to be interns， while men would apply to be editors at the magazine.

The university system aside， I suspect there is another deeply ingrained set of behaviors that also undermine women： the habits they pick up in the dating world. Men learn early that to woo women， they must risk rejection and be persistent. Women， for their part， learn from their earliest years that they must wait to be courted. The professional world does not reward the second approach. No one is going to ask someone out professionally if she just makes herself attractive enough. I suspect this is why people who put together discussion panels and solicit Op-Eds16） always tell me the same thing： its harder to get women to say yes than men. Well， duh17）. To be female in our culture is to be trained from puberty18） in the art of rebuffing19）—rebuffing gazes， comments， touches， propositions， and proposals.

Sensing that they are not prepared for the world they have entered， many professional women seek still more academic credentials. Ive come to think of this as intellectual primping20）—the frequently futile hope that one more degree will finally win notice， and with it， that perfect job or raise. Eight years ago， Anna Fels， a New York City psychiatrist， published a book called Necessary Dreams： Ambition in Womens Changing Lives. She told me she has since noticed that women today may have a harder time seeing the barriers before them than did the women of her generation. “Women may think the more degrees they get， the more chances they have of being hired，” she says， “but they are swimming upstream21）.”

In the 20th century， women often needed to be better-credentialed than men to get to the same place—for example， female Pulitzer Prize winners tended to be better-educated than men who won the same award. But in the 21st century， education is clearly no panacea22）.

Facebook的首席运营官谢丽尔·桑德伯格在其新书《向前一步》中讲述了2011年她在哈佛商学院给学生们的一个告诫。她告诉学生，未来15年“在座大约三分之一的女性会从事全职工作，而你们几乎都得为你邻座的男性打工。”

在对性别不平等这一21世纪早期的职场顽疾进行调查后，桑德伯格著成此书。将这本书形容为集女权主义论著和机场商务读物于一身的著作或许最为恰当。在书中，她主张对美国公司进行结构调整，使其更适合女性——特别是妈妈们——打拼。她还发出振奋人心的号召，激励女性要不断提升自我，勇于冒险，敢于表达，参与协商，积极参与决策。尽管她的论点在很多方面都很有说服力，但还有一个让人恼火的矛盾在很大程度上没有论及。借用桑德伯格的话，女性已经向前一步，进入了一个重要阵地——学校。上世纪80年代末，大学女生的比例已经超过了男生。到2009年，硕士和博士研究生中女性已占大多数。今天，25岁以上拥有本科学历的美国人多半是女性。但是，在《财富》杂志评出的500强企业的CEO中，女性只占4.2%。那么，女性在学业上的成功为何没能促成她们在职场上得到更多的领导职位呢？

40年前，美国教育法修正案第九条规定女性享有平等权利。但是，这种平等仅囿于学校。在这一严禁教育领域存在性别歧视的法案获国会通过后的几十年里，女性们纷纷涌入象牙塔。那里既有强制实现的平等地位，又有清晰透明、鼓励勤奋的成功标准。相比之下，职场的许多方面要么仍受性别歧视之害，要么推崇某种特定形式的自我推销，这种推销为多数女性所回避。研究一再表明，与职场中的男性相比，女性得到的批评更多，赞美更少。与背景相同的男性相比，女性拿到的起薪更低，从未来老板那里得到的评价也更负面。而且，不像在学校，职场中反歧视斗争的重担几乎完全落在了个体身上，女性必须启动申诉程序才能与老板抗衡。

同样值得指出的是，从大学时女生的成绩比男生好这个事实来看，学校所鼓励的行为——刻苦学习、精心准备、耐心攀登一级又一级的学术阶梯——这似乎给予了女性学术上的优势。然而，这些行为在职场上却未必那么奏效。在职场中，人员雇用和提拔既看正式的学历证书，也看个人的性格特点，而且很多时候社会关系比埋头苦干更管用。正如惠特尼·约翰逊和塔拉·莫尔今年年初在《哈佛商业评论》杂志网站上发表的一篇文章所说：“那些让女性在学校中名列前茅的技能只能让我们在职场中得个中不溜的成绩。”

年轻女性得花上几年工夫才能意识到，职场世界不比学校的精英教育，在某一领域取得成功的方略用以驾驭其他领域就有可能捉襟见肘。同时，多数女性还患有一个通病，即皇冠综合征——她们相信只要继续做好本职工作，伯乐终会注意到她们并赐予她们一顶桂冠。而这往往不会发生。

女性在走出校门的那一刻就开始掉队了。根据美国大学女性协会2012年的一项研究，即使将她们的大学专业和职业领域这些因素考虑在内，女性毕业一年后的平均薪水还是比男性低七个百分点。其中一个原因在于女性一旦走出校门就不愿冒太多风险：她们极少就第一笔工资与雇主“讨价还价”——57%的男性会这么做，而这么做的女性却只有7%。与男同事相比，女性在设定目标时也没有那么雄心勃勃。麦肯锡公司去年4月发布的一项研究显示，大公司的男员工中有36%的人希望当上高管，而女员工中只有18%的人想当高管。我所听过的能反映这一差异的事例简直不计其数。现任《琼斯母亲》杂志记者的斯蒂芬妮·孟希莫告诉我，她曾在《华盛顿月刊》负责招聘编辑，其时她发现在那些刚刚毕业而又学历相当的求职者中，女性更倾向于申请实习岗位，而男性则会申请当杂志编辑，这令她惊讶不已。

除去大学体系，我认为还有一套根深蒂固的行为方式也会削弱女性的竞争力：她们在恋爱中养成的那些习惯。男性早就熟知，要追求女性，就要冒被拒绝的风险，而且要持之以恒。而对于女性来说，她们很小时就知道必须要等男性来追求。职场不会鼓励第二种做法。在职场中，没人会仅仅因为你把自己打扮得足够有魅力就对你有兴趣。我猜这就是为什么讨论小组的组织者和特写专栏的招募人员总是告诉我同一个事实：让女人点头比让男人点头难多了。呃，好吧。在我们的文化里，女性从青春期开始就得接受训练，学会回绝的艺术——回绝目光、评论、接触、主张和建议。

许多职业女性感觉到对自己已经进入的领域准备得还不够充足，于是追逐更多的学历头衔。我已开始渐渐觉得这是种学术装饰：她们希望更多的学位能最终帮她们赢得关注，以及随之而来的完美工作或薪资提升——而这样的希望一次次落空。纽约市精神病医师安娜·费尔斯八年前出版了《必不可少的梦想：女性生活变迁中的雄心壮志》一书。她告诉我，此后她注意到，今天的女性相比她那一代人也许更难发现眼前的困难。“她们可能以为学历越高，被录用的概率就越大，”她说，“但她们是在逆流而行。”

在20世纪，为了取得同样的成就，女性往往需要有比男性更好的文凭。比如，普利策奖的女性得主往往比男性得主受过更好的教育。但在21世纪，教育显然不是万能的妙药。

1. Sheryl Sandberg：谢丽尔·桑德伯格（1969～），生于华盛顿，Facebook首席运营官，在2013年《福布斯》权势女性排行榜上排名第六位。

2. treatise [?tri?t?z] n. （专题）论文；专著

3. bracing [?bre?s??] adj. 令人振奋的

4. vexing [?veks??] adj. 引起烦恼的；令人恼火的

5. Title IX：美国教育法修正案第九条，于1972年颁布，严禁学校在学习和体育方面因性别歧视学生，是一项具有里程碑意义的民权立法。

6. shy away from：（由于羞怯或恐惧）躲开，避开；回避；退缩

7. prospective [pr??spekt?v] adj. 未来的；即将产生（或发生）的

8. grievance procedure：（企业管理中的）抱怨程序，申诉程序

9. grind away （at sth.）：〈口〉刻苦工作或学习；苦干；用功

10. meritocracy [?mer??t?kr?si] n. 精英领导；英才教育（制）

11. control for：考虑（外界因素）