शैडोइंग अभ्यास: Thinking Beyond Sheryl Sandberg's Lean In, with Jody Greenstone Miller | Big Think - YouTube के साथ अंग्रेजी बोलना सीखें

Sheryl Sandberg and the cadre of women who are writing about the problems women have that are creating barriers for their success,

⏸ रुका हुआ

गति:

110 वाक्य

यदि वाक्य बहुत छोटे या लंबे हों, तो समायोजित करने के लिए Edit पर क्लिक करें।

Sheryl Sandberg and the cadre of women who are writing about the problems women have that are creating barriers for their success,

whether it's confidence or it's being bossy or it is being perceived as somehow less friendly or desirable if you are successful,

are all fine.

These are not new ideas.

These are ideas that have been around since Matina Horner,

40 years ago, wrote her famous Fear of Success study where she showed

that women were afraid of what success would do to them.

And she did a fantastic research project where she asked women from very elite colleges

and men from elite colleges to answer a prompt.

And the prompt was, Jane finds herself at the top of her medical school class.

And for men it was,

John finds himself at the top of his medical school class.

And the men would write about John's wonderful success and how he would prosper and have a wonderful family and wife.

And the women would write things like,

Jane will be torn limb from limb,

she will be miserable for the rest of her life,

she's never going to be happy.

And based on this, Martina Horner said,

women have an internal block that prevents them from being successful because they're afraid of its impact.

Now, this was 40 years ago.

So what we're hearing today from people like Cheryl is very much the same,

that there are these internal things,

there are societal perceptions, and that those are the real hurdles to women becoming true leaders globally,

and leaders whether it's politics,

whether it's nonprofits or whether it's corporate America.

And I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with that.

And some of these I think are in fact real issues,

but I don't think that's the real problem.

I think the real problem is the way institutions are structured and the paths to leadership today,

which require one kind of person to be successful.

And that kind of person is the kind of person who makes the judgment that working and working

at very intense ways that require sacrifices across many other elements of an individual's life

is the way you will achieve success and they're willing to make that choice.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

The problem is many people,

many of them are women,

but many of them increasingly are millennial men,

don't always want to exercise their talents in a way that it means sacrificing so much of the rest of their life.

And so if we really want to tackle why there aren't more women in leadership

and why maybe you will want different kinds of leaders,

what I call a diversity of leadership that really is about a diversity of values,

not just diversity of gender or race,

you need to create alternative paths to leadership.

And what that really means is what is the problem?

If it's not leaning in,

if it's not confidence, what's stopping women?

I believe it's the fact that most jobs today at the very senior levels require an inordinate amount of time.

It's not a mystery.

It's not rocket science.

It's that jobs today are structured to require people to work 80,

90, 100 hours a week in order to achieve success in the organization.

To me, that is both short-sighted on behalf of organizations,

because I don't think they're are getting the best of people and they're limiting their talent pool,

and obviously individuals who may desire to exercise their talents,

if they're lucky enough to have them,

to rise to the top in a way that they can do it with still allowing for other things in their life.

I think you've got to re-examine how organizations are structured and rethink time.

So when we think about time,

the fact that people are working five days a week,

eight, ten hours a day is actually relatively arbitrary.

It's a holdover from the period of time when we were a farming culture.

And you have to ask yourself, why does that matter?

What matters is the amount of time we need to get a particular piece of work done

and how we are going to apply talent against that.

It's not as though there is a magic to working five days a week or six days a week,

eight hours a day or ten hours a day.

That's just what we're used to.

This is not rocket science.

It's not curing cancer.

It's something that every individual manager and every company has the power to change.

And the reason you want to change it,

you want to think about changing it,

is that you can expand your talent pool.

There are a lot of people on the sidelines who have enormous talent,

but they want to work differently.

They want to work three months a year,

not 12 months a year.

They want to work four days a week,

not five days a week.

They want to work six hours a day,

not 10 hours a day.

There are all kinds of reasons that people have different time commitments that will work for them.

And companies today are not flexible enough to understand how to accommodate

and manage so that you can take advantage of this talent pool.

And if you open your aperture to think about time differently,

then you will find enormous resources available to you that were not available to you right now.

So you absolutely will have greater communication cost,

greater teamwork cost, but you will have such a loyal and productive talent pool inside of your company,

that those costs, I think, are more than offset.

And our experience has been that people who work 25 hours a week are the most efficient,

the most focused.

They know they have time to do whatever else they need to do in their life when they're not working.

So when they work, they really work.

If you hire somebody 40,

50, 60 hours a week,

the rest of their life doesn't go away.

It just gets squeezed in.

And so productivity is impacted.

And I think you find that it affects both satisfaction because people always feel stretched and ultimately productivity.

100

And so I feel from our experience

101

that the folks who are working less than 40 hours a week are as productive

102

and maybe more productive than the people who work more.

103

Again, it's not right or wrong,

104

but it's an ability to have a culture where not everybody has made the decision

105

that I'm gonna put my head down

106

and only focus on my work to the exclusion of other things in my life

107

because I want to excel and I want to be a leader,

108

you will be bringing in people who have made different choices

109

but may have just as much talent and just as much ambition actually and just as much drive,

110

they just want to do it in the smaller chunks.

TRENDING

शैडोइंग तकनीक क्या है?

शैडोइंग (Shadowing) एक विज्ञान-समर्थित भाषा सीखने की तकनीक है जो मूल रूप से पेशेवर दुभाषिया प्रशिक्षण के लिए विकसित की गई थी। विधि सरल लेकिन शक्तिशाली है: आप मूल अंग्रेज़ी ऑडियो सुनते हैं और तुरंत इसे ज़ोर से दोहराते हैं — जैसे वक्ता की छाया 1-2 सेकंड की देरी से। शोध से पता चलता है कि यह उच्चारण सटीकता, स्वर, लय, जुड़ी हुई ध्वनियाँ, सुनने की समझ और बोलने की प्रवाहशीलता में काफ़ी सुधार करता है।

☕ हमें एक कॉफी पिलाएं

आपके समर्थन के कारण ShadowingEnglish 100% मुफ्त है। सर्वर और AI की लागत अधिक है — आपकी कॉफी हमें आगे बढ़ने में मदद करती है! 🙏

PayPal के माध्यम से दान करें

ShadowingEnglish.com – अंग्रेज़ी शैडोइंग अभ्यास

शैडोइंग अभ्यास: Thinking Beyond Sheryl Sandberg's Lean In, with Jody Greenstone Miller | Big Think - YouTube के साथ अंग्रेजी बोलना सीखें

लोकप्रिय

इस पाठ के बारे में

मुख्य शब्दावली और वाक्यांश

अभ्यास के टिप्स

शैडोइंग तकनीक क्या है?

शैडोइंग अभ्यास: Thinking Beyond Sheryl Sandberg's Lean In, with Jody Greenstone Miller | Big Think - YouTube के साथ अंग्रेजी बोलना सीखें

ऐप डाउनलोड करें

इस पाठ के बारे में

मुख्य शब्दावली और वाक्यांश

अभ्यास के टिप्स

शैडोइंग तकनीक क्या है?