This one was a difficult one for me to read.
There are several problems with it, but as someone who is really struggling to find my place in a corporate environment where I just don't seem to fit, there was a lot that I relate with, too.
What I relate with:
- Being someone who values collaboration over winning at other's expense, something that is often valued in the corporate world.
- The idea that repetitive failure and experimentation are the only way to quickly succeed, however these traits are constantly frowned upon and even punished in most corporate environments.
- I don't vibe with people who make large shows of their work at the expense of the work itself. I see it as wasteful and dishonest and not something I would ever do, but this behavior is consistently rewarded.
- I am not and, to my knowledge, have never been considered "bossy" "aggressive" or similar, however these are traits that make it to the top.
- That you are the master of your own career, and if you find yourself in a situation where you are striving for something simply because it's what you think you "should" do rather than what you actually want, to re-evaluate your priorities in your terms, and your terms alone.
Things I had a problem with:
- The gender gap is a result of women not *wanting* the same jobs as men. I agree that not every woman want's to be a CEO (I don't) but you seriously think that you can just wash away a major disparity in gender by "well maybe they just don't want to because I don't want to"?
- She used, as an example of "changing the environment influences behavior more effectively than using logic", a European country that needed more organ donors switching their paperwork default to be "check this box if you DONT want to be an organ donor" vs "check this box if you DO want to be an organ donor." While I get what she was trying to convey... Bodily consent is NOT something that should just be defaulted to "yes" EVER, and in ANY situation. It was a bad example.
- The assumption that women aren't interested in science. As a woman in science, that's just not true. A lot of women are interested in it, but maybe they aren't interested ENOUGH to pay the social penalty that comes with it, i.e. working in a corporate environment that rewards the antithesis of their natural behavior, the gender cultural penalty, etc.
- This book is very obviously for privileged women. There is a lot of mention that money is less important past a certain threshold, which I agree with, but it does nothing to touch on the path to GET to a sustainable income. That said, that's probably outside the scope of this book anyway.
- There is no valuable instruction about how to change our systems to provide more diverse rewards (which, should, according to the author, foster more diversity). I understand that this is part of the point, because we are all in control of our own careers. But that's one sentence that didn't need to take up an entire book of rambling about how evil corporate America is.
It scares me that I related so heavily with the concepts that personality traits that are not my norm are the ones that are valued on the corporate ladder. It has caused me to think more critically about what I really want from my career and how to go about getting it, which is not an easy task for someone who dislikes ambiguity. That made this book difficult to read, emotionally, because it's just SO negative, yet in some cases, so true.