Abstract
Sheryl Sandberg’s number one best-selling book, Lean In: Women, Work, and The Will to Lead, has three basic characteristics: (1) the book is strongly concerned about gender inequality in society and in the workplace, which Sandberg believes can be corrected by women in high places and equal responsibilities between men and women; (2) although the problem is seen as societal, change is considered personal and not structural; and (3) the book is written from a privileged position by a women who is Chief Operating Officer at Facebook where she has a net worth of more than US$800 million. These three points provide the context for reading and understanding what this book is about.
Regarding the issue of privilege. Sandberg is a graduate of Harvard University; she was mentored by and worked for Larry Summers, onetime President of Harvard and economic advisor to President Obama. Her husband, whom she describes as an equal partner in child care and other domestic responsibilities, is also a high earner. Sandberg writes that when she was graduating from high school she was voted “most likely to succeed.” She worried that this designation would prevent her from getting a date to the prom.
The binary approach to gender inequality is the central theme of the book. Sandberg cites many examples of inequality between men and women in society and in the workplace. But her solutions are personal. Lean In means acting more assertively, seizing opportunities, and not succumbing to pressure or fear. This message could resonate with many middle-class women; perhaps even more so than a more political social action agenda.
Sandberg cares about discrimination and exploitation of women; and with her privileged leadership, she and others like her may help to influence change. In fact, her voice is more likely to be heard than the voices of less prominent women. But those of us who care about low-income women and women of color will find the book unrelated to these concerns. The concept of intersectionality in understanding diversity among men and women is not even considered.
Sandberg considers herself a feminist. The challenge, however, is how to connect her view of the world to the rest of us. “Trickle down feminism” (like trickle down economics) may be limited as a strategy for change. But having women in high places, especially if there are more of them, may have the potential to affect outcomes.
There are structural economic aspects to societal and workplace inequities that need to change. One example is the need for better jobs for working-class people. Most of us believe that grassroots movements are necessary for such change to occur, with political actions to support these efforts. The closest Sandberg comes to considering a movement is Lean In groups that create circles of small peer groups that meet in person for ongoing encouragement and development. Is this a mechanism for change that low-income, working-class women from diverse backgrounds can believe in? The voices of these women need to be heard to answer that question. Sandberg really does not provide much guidance here.