Literary Insights

“If you liked the book, you can purchase it using the links in the description below. By buying through these links, you contribute to the blog without paying any extra, as we receive a small commission. This helps us bring more quality content to you!”

BOOK LINK:

CLICK HERE

Here is a summary of the key points from the dedication and introduction sections:

The dedication is dedicated to two people - Tom, with love and excitement for future adventures, and Kati Jo, who is described as the author’s ultimate source of power.
The introduction argues that the commonly told narrative of women’s advancement as a linear progression is a false story. It leaves out many important factors like the varying experiences of women of color.
The goal of squeezing women into the male-dominated power structures has not worked well, as shown by lack of progress in representation.
The book aims to present an alternative view of power, one that plays to women’s strengths rather than forcing them into traditional male models of power.
This alternative view sees power as more fluid and relational for women, involving connecting with others, listening, and bringing one’s whole self to the job while also managing other responsibilities like family.
Real-world examples are given of organizations that are starting to recognize skills like those gained from parenting as valuable leadership qualities.
The authors acknowledge writing from their own privileged viewpoint as white women and have supplemented their own experiences with interviews of diverse women.

The passage discusses various challenges to achieving power that different groups of women face. While phrases like “women of color” capture some of the diversity, there are still unique issues. For example, Black women commonly face questions of competence at work, while Asian and Latina women often get asked where they are really from.

The focus is on power at work, but home life is also acknowledged as an influence. Factors like race, discrimination, socioeconomic status, and wealth impact workplace power both historically and currently. These impacts need more detailed examination.

While not claiming to speak for all women, the authors hope to point out commonalities in lived experiences to unite voices for more impact. Their research involved interviews on topics like power dynamics between men and women, barriers women face, and what holds them back from power - both bosses and husbands. They explore what is wrong with the current power structure and why more women in leadership worldwide is needed. Though some metrics are improving, true equality remains elusive and change is happening too slowly. The passage provides examples of everyday frustrations and hurdles that show why women lack power. Both authors have also experienced such issues firsthand in their careers.

This passage discusses issues around power and gender in the workplace. Some key points:

It argues that traditional models of “power over” others are problematic, especially for women who have to shape themselves to fit this mold. This takes a mental and identity toll.
Women, especially women of color, are experiencing more overt microaggressions and backlash as gender parity issues rise to the forefront.
The #MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements have helped more women recognize problematic power structures and call them out. However, the system remains skewed against women of color.
Today’s workplace is experiencing agitation, resentment, and burnout due to collisions between traditional and emerging views of power as more women rise into leadership.
Women tend to view power as “power to” enact change, while traditional views see it as “power over” others. There is a clash between these notions of power.
A “reprogramming” of power is occurring as women’s views gain more visibility and influence. But entrenched privileges will take time to overcome.
The authors argue women need to “remake power” on all fronts to make it align with their goals and values of empowerment, encouragement, and sharing credit/joy rather than intimidation. This represents a broader shift in societal priorities.

The passage discusses redefining the concept of power. It starts by acknowledging that power is an intuitive concept but one that is largely shaped by man-made social structures. It then provides a brief history of how power has been defined over centuries by thinkers like Pittacus, Machiavelli, and Lord Acton.

It notes that early definitions focused on political power, but that modern social science looks at social power in everyday interactions. Key definitions discussed include Max Weber’s view of power as the ability to exercise one’s will over others, and Robert Dahl’s view as the ability to get someone to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do.

The passage then explores current perspectives on power from experts like David Winter and Laura Kray. Winter adheres to classic definitions that see power as making something or someone move according to one’s will. However, Kray proposes a broader view of power as a social force related to the power to effect change. She distinguishes between power “over” others and power “to” achieve goals.

The discussion of evolving perspectives on power from a man’s versus woman’s viewpoint hints at the potential for redefining power in a way that better suits both genders. Overall, the passage provides context on how power has traditionally been defined and analyzes opportunities to reconceptualize it.

Research shows men see power as hierarchical and about controlling others, while women see power as communal and about collaboration. Men view power as zero-sum, while women see it as non-zero-sum.
If fully embraced, a communal, non-zero-sum view of power could create different organizational cultures and outcomes. However, this view is not currently rewarded in most systems.
Autonomy and status are related but underrated concepts compared to power. Autonomy is about personal freedom, while status is respected social standing within a community. Women often prioritize autonomy and status over traditional power.
Status is considered communal and granted by respect from others. It incentivizes fair treatment of others to maintain standing. Power alone does not require this. Women gravitate toward status-seeking behaviors.
Research suggests many women have an aversion to power, not wanting the same hierarchical, controlling definition that is currently rewarded. They question whether gaining power requires adopting masculine behaviors that are at odds with their priorities. More research is exploring this “supply-side bias” among women regarding power.
Research shows women have different attitudes towards power than men. Women value relationships and life balance more, and career ambition/power over others less.
Studies found women were less interested in goals like having a powerful position or power over others compared to men. Women also expected more negative outcomes from having significant power over others.
Having power and leadership roles can negatively impact women’s mental health and well-being more than men’s. Women in power experience higher rates of depression and stress due to issues like stereotyping, prejudice, isolation, and resistance.
The current hierarchical power structure was largely designed to benefit wealthy white men, not represent the diversity of people. Feminist scholars argue women are still battling the same issues around seeking equity as in the past.
Women traditionally wield some domestic/home power through influence over consumer decisions and family culture. But this type of power has limitations and is not a fully satisfying alternative to career/leadership power in the public sphere with its masculine-designed hierarchy. A new model of power is argued to be long overdue.
Historically, women had little direct power and autonomy, often having to exert influence indirectly through their husbands or risk social consequences like abandonment if they divorced.
Even today, as women increasingly outearn their partners, they still take on the majority of domestic responsibilities like managing the home, showing how antiquated traditional power dynamics are.
Having power only indirectly through a male partner or ruler was flawed and unsatisfying for women. True power can be taken away, and women faced consequences if they tried to exert too much influence.
Some argue power should be redefined rather than trying to remake women. If power was expanded to include values traditionally seen as “feminine” like compassion and cooperation, it could be more effective.
Academics are shifting how they study power, with more female researchers exploring concepts like power-to rather than just power-over. This could help redefine power in a more positive way.
The authors argue for a new definition of power focused on influencing change rather than controlling others, and one where seeking respect is part of power rather than just hierarchical domination. This better reflects women’s perspectives on power.

The passage describes finding role models of how women can effectively wield power in the real world. It profiles Ndéye Lucie Cissé, a member of parliament in Senegal, who sees power as a tool to achieve meaningful goals like improving access to electricity and sanitation in schools and clinics.

Senegal passed a radical gender quota law in 2010 requiring equal numbers of men and women in political parties. This increased women’s representation in parliament from 22.7% to 42.7%. Cissé played a key role in pushing for this “parity law” over many years, reconceiving of power as collaborative rather than domineering.

The newly elected women MPs were initially met with suspicion but had a plan to use their power to enact change. They prioritized issues like electricity and sanitation that improve women’s lives, illustrating how power can be wielded differently from a feminine perspective with an emphasis on meaningful results over status or control. The passage presents Cissé and other profiled women as role models redefining what power means in practice when viewed and used as women.

The purpose of the passages is to describe how female leaders in Senegal and at The Economist magazine exercise leadership and power in a way that focuses on collaboration, inclusion, and benefitting others rather than self-aggrandizement.

Specifically, it summarizes how the new female parliament members in Senegal worked hard to pass laws improving women’s rights and public services. It also describes how Zanny Minton Beddoes, the first female editor of The Economist, views power as a means of getting things done through consultation and fair decision-making processes, rather than focusing on status or hierarchy. Both women emphasize using their positions to address important issues and serve the greater good, as opposed to just accumulating power for its own sake.

Taylor Minton Beddoes, the editor-in-chief of The Economist, regularly holds editorial meetings with her team to get input and feedback. She also periodically “crashes” meetings of other departments like video and audio to listen to their perspectives and address any questions.
She finds this approach fosters positive effects as it helps ensure others take credit for successes rather than her. This is motivating for the team. She applies this even to enjoyable decisions to set the right tone when tougher calls need to be made.
As a leader, she emphasizes the need for both consultation and decisiveness. She will still make tough calls when needed but aims to consult and not second-guess herself. Her signature style is leadership through listening and consultation while also taking responsibility for final decisions.
Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of the IMF, sees power as a means of self-expression and achieving goals, not power over others. Her experiences under communism shaped this view. She recounts experiences as a teenager using power strategically to achieve justice.
As a leader, she aims to wield power to enact positive change and help others. She stamped out bullying at the IMF. Her goal is exercising power through excitement, not fear, especially in male-dominated spaces.
Georgieva’s distinctive office design and leadership style publicly role model an alternative to corrosive, fear-based power over others from a position of authority.
Cynthia Marshall is the first Black female CEO of an NBA team, the Dallas Mavericks. She has a nontraditional view of power that embraces authenticity.
She had a tough upbringing witnessing domestic violence and faced racism and sexism rising through corporate America. This motivated her to succeed and help others.
Marshall believes power gives one the ability to effect change and be heard. She uses her power to make the Mavericks more inclusive and shakes up traditional sports leadership norms.
She displays a tiara in her office to embrace her power as “queen of the castle.” Her approach boosts confidence in female leadership.
Marshall requires “radical authenticity” at work, believing one’s personal and professional selves cannot be separated. This whole self approach is empowering for women and minorities.
Her leadership style hints at a more welcoming, organic view of power informed by lived experiences outside of work. This is a departure from past generations that separated personal and professional lives.

The passage describes an encounter between two white male executives and the authors about increasing gender diversity at their company. The men say they want to hire women, but only those who will “fit in” and not disrupt the status quo. They want women who will act like the men they’ve always hired - in a tough, hierarchical style.

It contrasts this with Cynt Marshall’s approach as CEO of the Mavericks. When meeting new employees, she asks about their career goals but also about their personal lives and families. Her male colleagues generally do not think to ask such personal questions. She believes understanding an employee’s whole self helps create a better workplace culture and allows the company to handle crises like racial tensions more effectively.

As a young executive, Marshall convinced hesitant male bosses to be more understanding of an employee with a drug addiction, opening their eyes to issues of mental health, background, and addiction. This changed how they saw leadership. Similarly, confident female leaders like Ndéye Lucie Cissé improved the performance of male lawmakers by demonstrating impressive leadership qualities.

The passage argues that considering employees’ “whole selves” and embracing authenticity allows for a more productive, effective and rewarding conceptualization of power that values emotions and community. It portrays several women leaders finding satisfaction, fulfillment and even joy in their roles, disputing the idea that women are ambivalent about leadership roles.

Dacher Keltner conducted a seminal study on power and human behavior using cookies. He found that people randomly assigned the role of leader in a group were more likely to take the last remaining cookie in front of the group, demonstrating less regard for others.
Studies have found that people with more power tend to be less empathetic and more self-centered or self-obsessed. Power can shift people’s behavior quickly - they may care less about others and act with worse manners.
This suggests power does something to our brains that makes us less considerate of others and more focused on ourselves. The authors were interested in understanding the neurological and genetic basis for power and where the impulse for it resides in the brain.
While they didn’t expect to find a specific scientific link between the brain and power coming into this book, their research uncovered insights into how power activates and is encoded in our neurological and genetic systems. This helped explain power’s effects on human behavior and decision-making.

The summary focuses on the key insights from Dacher Keltner’s “cookie monster” study on power and its implications, as well as the authors’ interest in exploring the neurological basis of power to understand its effects on people.

The article discusses research on the relationship between power and empathy. Studies using priming found that people primed to feel powerful were less likely to take others’ perspectives and displayed reduced empathy. This suggests power correlates with more abstract thinking and less concern for how others see and feel.

However, abstract thinking also has benefits for leadership, like seeing the big picture. The key is balancing abstract and empathetic thinking. Most current power structures tip too far toward abstraction with too little empathy.

If power were shared more equally between women and men, outcomes may differ. Research indicates women on average display greater empathy, though this seems to stem more from socialized gender roles than innate ability. Empathy is an important leadership skill for bridging the gap between power and perspective-taking.

Some evidence also links female status-seeking with handling power differently - emphasizing empathy more than men do as status rises. In summary, the article discusses research attempting to understand the relationship between power and empathy from a behavioral science perspective.

Researchers studied how perceptions of organizations change as people rise through the ranks. They found men started seeing their companies in a more positive light and less realistically.
As men gained status, they perceived their companies as more diverse, inclusive and equitable than they actually were. This “cut them off from reality.”
In contrast, women’s perceptions of challenges facing their companies remained unchanged as they rose in the ranks. Women were able to maintain a realistic view.
Additional research found power may affect people’s brains differently. Studies on “mirror neurons” showed brain activity related to empathy decreased in powerful people but not powerless people.
Further experiments primed people to feel powerful or powerless and measured brain activity. People primed as powerless had less activity in areas linked to taking action. Powerful people were more likely to act.
This suggests power begets power as it generates more opportunities. It also indicates lack of power can disadvantage people by making them less proactive. Additional findings related power to confidence and risk-taking.

So in summary, the research found perceptions and brain activity changed with power for men but not women, with implications for how power is gained and maintained.

This summary discusses research showing that women tend to have lower left-frontal activity than men when primed with thoughts of power or influence. This area of the brain is associated with action motivation.

Some key points:

Men may be more “primed naturally for action” based on brain activity differences. But more research is needed to understand this.
Reframing power as influence rather than “power over” others may change women’s brain activation patterns and make them feel more motivated to act.
Simply recognizing one’s own power/influence could activate women to exercise more power and take more action towards goals. This could create a positive feedback loop.
Viewing power as a tool or verb rather than a noun may help women see it as something that encourages action and motivates goal achievement, rather than something that corrupts.
Having power can induce positive feelings like authenticity, optimism and higher self-esteem that further encourage action. It allows people to accomplish their goals.

So in summary, the research discussed suggests subtle reframings around power and influence could help boost women’s sense of empowerment and motivation to take action.

Marshall encourages embracing one’s “whole self” when in a position of power. Multiple studies show that acting authentically and encouraging others can create opportunities for joy.
For women who often focus on pleasing others, having power that allows them to act freely and be more themselves provides emotional benefits like joy. Women may underestimate these upsides of power while overestimating the costs.
Power can activate behaviors and acting without needing approval from others. This formulation aligns with benefits of power described by researchers - it allows one to do more of what they want and be more of themselves.
Recasting traditional views of power is suggested. Instead of “power corrupts,” a view of “power liberates and shared power succeeds” is proposed. Great women using power for good counters the traditional view of power tending to corrupt.
Research on power, empathy, and authenticity provides support for the proposed “power code” of more joy, less ego, and maximum impact. When the focus is on others, relationships and purpose rather than power over, it nurtures authenticity and joy.
Experiences of powerful women and science show power doesn’t necessarily corrupt but can have positive effects when framed and used in the right way according to this proposed new code or model of power.
Workplace discontent is at an all-time high, with most groups feeling dissatisfied in some way - men who feel opportunities are being denied due to diversity efforts, women who are tired of barriers and unequal treatment, minorities who face racism and lack of support.
The #MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements have further exposed issues and empowered people to speak up, but also led to backlash from those who feel threatened by equality efforts.
A post-#MeToo study found gender harassment actually increased as overt sexual coercion/attention decreased, suggesting a backlash against women speaking up. Many men feel wrongly accused or discriminated against.
As a result, men are increasingly avoiding one-on-one interactions with women at work and saying they would hesitate to hire attractive women or those requiring close collaboration, showing efforts for diversity and equality can face resistance from those losing relative power or privilege.
Clara Green, leading diversity efforts at a bank, received hate mail, showing the tensions caused as power is redistributed more equitably in line with movements for racial and gender justice. Workplace discontent is high across most groups currently.
George Floyd’s murder in 2020 catalyzed discussions around racial equity and prompted companies to pledge billions toward racial justice programs. However, the actual delivery of those funds has so far been limited.
While promotion rates for diverse candidates have increased at some companies, many still face barriers advancing. There is also backlash from some white employees who feel insecure about changes.
Women, especially Black women, report ongoing disappointments as diversity efforts have not fully translated into better career opportunities. Leaders note resistance from those who question the purpose of diversity.
Everyday power dynamics are being scrutinized more closely in the current climate. Examples shared illustrate how women are speaking up about subtle slights and disrespect that may have been shrugged off before but now spark indignation.
Younger women, while aware of inequities, often still feel pressure to avoid rocking the boat for risk of harming their careers. While some feel empowered to challenge issues, sustained cultural changes will require continual efforts across all levels.
The passage discusses the ongoing challenges women face in the workplace, despite making educational and career gains. It notes statistics showing the gender pay gap has largely stalled and women’s labor force participation has plateaued.
Women now outperform men in education but do not see equivalent career advancement. The modern economy theoretically favors women’s skills but progress has been limited.
Even high-powered women still encounter obstacles like biased treatment from male colleagues. Different approaches to power and networking persist between men and women.
Events and situations are often still designed for and by men, leaving women feeling out of place. One executive described struggling to participate in long evening networking events focused on heavy drinking.
The passage questions whether women need to simply “learn the rules” or could establish their own parallel style that feels more natural and inclusive. A new, redesigned structure with shared power could better express everyone’s strengths.
Significant systemic changes are still needed to remove formidable obstacles blocking women’s progress. But incremental steps like calling out biased behavior in real time can help tip the scales in women’s favor.
Emotional labor refers to the invisible work of managing emotions and keeping others comfortable through means like sending birthday messages, organizing celebrations, or providing emotional support.
Women, especially women of color, often take on a disproportionate amount of emotional labor at work, such as Clara Green supporting both her Black and white colleagues through processing racial issues in 2020.
Emotional labor is essential for business as it drives customer satisfaction and employee retention. However, it can become tiring when expected constantly without boundaries.
While necessary at times, leaders should be mindful of relying too heavily on certain employees for emotional labor and look for ways to distribute it more equitably. Taking on high levels of emotional labor without break can lead to burnout.

The overall message is that emotional labor is an important but underappreciated form of unpaid work often falling more to women, so leaders should recognize its value and not overburden some employees with it to the point of stress or burnout. Distribution and limits are important for well-being.

Emotional labor, such as managing people’s emotions and caring for their well-being, is often taken for granted, especially for women. It requires significant effort but often goes unrecognized and unrewarded.
Women engage in more “nonpromotable tasks” (NPTs) like volunteering for committees, mentoring others, and administrative work. This takes away from time for high-profile tasks that lead to promotions.
Once women achieve positions of power, they stop doing some forms of emotional labor like inauthentic laughter to be deferential. But the expectation for emotional labor and NPTs remains.
The “perfect woman problem” means women have to be exceptionally competent and dedicated, beyond what is expected of average men, to be considered for leadership roles and promotions. Striving for perfection takes a toll.
There is a need for companies to recognize and value emotional labor/NPTs as real work that contributes to organizational functioning. Tasks should be more equally distributed between men and women.
David Leonard, head of McCarthy Tétrault law firm, realized women candidates were being promoted based on past performance, while men were promoted based on future potential/promise.
Research shows women are 14% less likely than men to be promoted, as they are not seen as having leadership potential despite better performance scores. Definitions of “potential” favor stereotypically masculine traits.
At McCarthy Tétrault, no women partners were selected despite intentions to promote more women. Leonard launched an investigation and found a bias favoring male candidates.
At another major law firm, a male executive found many impressive female candidates but none were selected as partners, as they each had vague “issues” that wouldn’t disqualify male candidates.
A senior woman at an advisory firm was denied promotion despite strong reviews, and a less experienced male colleague was promoted after threatening to leave.
Unofficial requirements or “checklists” for promotions are often constructed based on traditional male career models and present hidden barriers for women’s careers.
A senior female executive at BBB pointed out that the requirement for senior executives to work overseas for 3-4 years before being eligible for the CEO role excludes many qualified women candidates. Most women with young families cannot easily relocate overseas for extended periods.
The male CEO dismissed this concern, insisting mothers can do overseas postings just as well as fathers. However, the reality is most women at the top have careers despite having husbands with their own jobs, while most men at the top have wives who do not work.
When reviewing potential CEO candidates, one by one the female candidates were ruled out for not being able to or unwilling to relocate overseas, even if it was just assumed they couldn’t. This left only male candidates in the running.
This experience led Sally to realize she would never have a fair shot at the top job at BBB due to such arbitrary requirements. She ultimately decided to leave the company.
Rigid checklists for career progression were often designed without consideration for women and need to be revisited and made more flexible and inclusive to allow different paths to success. Diversity of experiences and leadership styles would lead to better outcomes for companies.
Amaya, a senior consultant, suggests handing tasks back to the person who handed it to you rather than saying no directly. For example, “Can you handle the follow-up, Jim, because I’m back-to-back all day today? I just won’t get to it.”
Amaya recently did this herself when given a task. She said it made her feel great, and younger women she spoke to felt empowered even witnessing the exchange.
However, the authors acknowledge not every woman will feel comfortable being so direct. If you can’t say no immediately, it’s better to buy yourself time by saying you need to get back to the person, then look for a polite way to decline.
The summary suggests following Amaya’s example of handing the task back to the original requestor, while also offering a helpful alternative such as suggesting someone else who has time for the task. The goal is to avoid directly saying no if possible, while still not taking on more work.

The passage discusses the ongoing struggle with work-life balance, especially for women. While more flexibility emerged during the pandemic, the fundamental issues remain.

Only 62% of women across countries rate their work-life balance positively, and women report higher stress levels related to work than men. The pandemic exposed the challenges of balancing competing responsibilities.

Simply aiming for a precarious “balance” is an outdated concept. What people really want is to blend and integrate work and other life priorities in an authentic way. The pandemic opened the possibility to redefine norms and increase flexibility, but the new system is still being worked out.

Flexibility of location and scheduling is seen as a key ingredient to allow this blend. Part-time work is not a real solution and can limit career progression. The Netherlands experiment showed part-time work leads to underrepresentation in leadership. Overall there remains progress to be made in developing an equitable system that supports people with various responsibilities outside of work.

During Covid lockdowns in 2020, many people started working from home which launched a large-scale global experiment in remote work. This removed the stigma around flexible work, as it was no longer seen as just a “mommy track” option.
However, not all bosses were fans of remote work, with some Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase CEOs arguing it hindered collaboration and that ambitious people prefer being in the office.
Research casts doubt on these claims, finding that remote work can actually increase productivity. It allows people to avoid long commutes and live where they want, making them more satisfied.
While flexible work has benefits, the pandemic also highlighted challenges. Surveys found women took on more household duties like childcare when working remotely. This negatively impacted their careers.
Some women chose to leave their jobs entirely during the pandemic due to childcare demands, showing flexibility alone does not solve gender inequality and can even exacerbate it without the right supports. More needs to be done to ensure both women and men can balance work and family responsibilities.
The author talks about how the pandemic revealed higher rates of underperformance among working women, especially single mothers and married women juggling work and family responsibilities. She took steps to prevent laying off these women.
As many companies mandate return to office work, flexibility remains a double-edged sword for women. Surveys show men are more eager to return to the office full-time. This gives them more face time with bosses and opportunities to get high-profile assignments and promotions.
For working mothers especially, challenges like unpredictable childcare situations made it harder for them to return to the office as frequently as male colleagues. This perpetuates women getting left out of important meetings, assignments, and promotions opportunities.
Overwork has become unsustainable and impossible to balance with family responsibilities. Studies show productivity declines sharply after 50-60 hour weeks. But “greedy work” demands of 50-60+ hour weeks make it very difficult for women to maintain high-powered careers long-term.
The US culture worships overwork more extremely than other Western nations. True balance and blending of work and personal life requires rethinking this culture of overwork and prioritizing efficient output over face time and long hours. Flexible working arrangements are not enough without addressing the issues of overwork and presenteeism.

Here is a summary of the provided text:

The text discusses work hours and work culture in different countries. It notes that South Korea has among the highest average work hours but the government has tried reducing the weekly limit to 52 hours from 68 previously due to health concerns.
Other countries like Netherlands, Norway, Germany, and Denmark have average work weeks of less than 40 hours but still have successful economies. Germany in particular has laws protecting workers from work weeks over 48 hours.
The text compares work hours and cultures between Germany and the US, finding that Germans work significantly fewer average hours (1349 vs 1791 in the US) but are still highly productive. Germans value a better work-life balance.
It discusses a professor’s theory that much “performative work” done just to look busy is unproductive and wastes time. She argues most professional jobs could likely be done in 30 hours per week by cutting out unnecessary meetings and busywork.
The UK ran a study letting companies try a 4-day work week, which over 90% of participating companies then adopted permanently, seeing benefits to productivity, retention, and well-being. Younger workers also increasingly demand better work-life balance.
In summary, the text examines differing global attitudes towards work hours and argues for the benefits of prioritizing a better work-life balance and reducing unnecessary “performative” work that wastes time. It advocates experimenting with reduced work weeks like a 4-day model.

The chapter discusses how women’s ability to pursue careers and gain power is held back by the demands of family life and domestic responsibilities, which often still disproportionately fall on women. While some exceptions have forged successful paths, it is not accessible to most women without superhuman strength or a partner who takes on the majority of childcare.

The authors argue that to truly empower women in the workforce, we must also re-envision the domestic sphere and how responsibilities are distributed in the home. Research shows the biggest barrier is often husbands who have not sufficiently adapted to changed gender roles. Heterosexual marriages in particular remain stuck in traditional models that limit women’s potential.

The chapter aims to bring attention to this issue, as the authors believe women cannot fully access power outside the home until domestic roles are more evenly balanced. The perfection paradox women face at work is also present at home, with unrealistic expectations placed on women that are personally limiting and systemic barriers to progress. Overall fairness and equality in the private sphere is key to empowering women publicly.

There is a massive gender imbalance in domestic responsibilities and childcare, even among higher-income families. Society needs men to become equally invested in these tasks.
Erin Zimmerman’s career trajectory followed a common pattern where she had to limit her work due to childcare responsibilities, while her husband Eric earned more as an optometrist. This led to an imbalance in their household division of labor.
During the COVID lockdown, Erin became the sole breadwinner as Eric took on more childcare and domestic duties. For the first time, her work was viewed as equally important. Both spouses gained new insights into each other’s roles.
However, their dynamic reverted after the lockdown ended. Erin still hoped for a more balanced sharing of responsibilities long-term.
Money and earnings are a sensitive topic that people often avoid discussing openly. It’s been found that in couples where the woman earns more, the income is sometimes misreported to make it seem like the man earns more, indicating underlying biases.

So in summary, it discusses the gender imbalance in unpaid labor, how one couple’s dynamic changed during COVID lockdown but reverted after, and how earning power within relationships is a taboo topic that people don’t always report accurately due to gender biases.

Research found that in surveys of married heterosexual couples, both the husband’s earnings were being inflated and the wife’s earnings were being deflated. This was happening regardless of who answered the survey - the husband or wife.
Both the husband and wife were misreporting their own and their partner’s earnings in a way that made it appear the husband earned more, in order to adhere to traditional gender norms and the appearance of a traditional marriage.
This was happening even as more women earn as much or more than their husbands. Both partners seemed motivated to preserve the superficial appearance of a traditional marriage, where the husband earns more, even if it meant lying on official forms.
Similar findings have been seen in Switzerland as well. Researchers found couples were misreporting earnings to avoid the threshold where the woman earned more than the partner, again to protect traditional gender roles and the husband’s ego/status.
So in summary, it appeared both husbands and wives were engaged in misreporting earnings to inflate the husband’s reported income and deflate the wife’s, in order to maintain traditional gender norms and the appearance of the husband earning more, even if that was not the reality. The motivation seemed to be protecting the relationship and the husband’s status by preserving this traditional dynamic.
Studies show that men, even young men today, still do much less housework and childcare than women. Men do do more tasks like gardening seen as traditionally “masculine.”
Women spend more time than men on both physical chores and the “cognitive labor” of planning, organizing, and managing household tasks.
One study identified 4 stages of cognitive labor: anticipating needs, identifying options, deciding on a solution, and monitoring if it works. Women typically do the first 3 stages, but men often make the final decision.
During COVID lockdowns, women took on more of the increased housework and childcare load, causing some to cut back more on paid work outside the home.
While men say they support equality, data shows they do not equally share domestic duties, leaving women with a disproportionate “second shift” at home in addition to careers. Change is happening very slowly.
Cognitive labor requires skills like planning and organization that are valued in the workplace, but this domestic labor remains largely invisible and unrecognized.
Eve Rodsky is an attorney and author who has researched the massive gender imbalance in unpaid domestic labor and childcare work done primarily by women.
She argues this “free labor” allows power structures to remain in place by controlling women’s time and responsibilities at home. It also holds women back professionally by taking up significant time that could be spent on career development.
Rodsky advocates getting men fully involved in home responsibilities like decision-making, transportation of children, managing schedules, etc. - not just help with discrete tasks. She questions men who claim to support women but don’t know basic details like their child’s dentist.
Her research involved meticulously documenting all the “cognitive labor” involved in running a household - things like planning meals, grocery lists, noticing children’s preferences. This invisible work takes significant mental energy that is undervalued.
Imbalanced domestic responsibilities have real financial consequences, with mothers experiencing a “motherhood penalty” through lower lifetime earnings compared to childless women or fathers. Rodsky argues for fairly distributing this “unpaid labor” at home.

The unequal division of unpaid labor in the home, often referred to as “women’s work”, is one of the most important gender equity issues today. Several key points are made:

For many couples, roles and responsibilities in the home tend to emerge organically over time rather than being intentionally planned and discussed. This can lead to imbalances where one partner takes on more of the domestic and childcare labor.
As the husband devotes more time to his career, he becomes more removed from parenting responsibilities. Meanwhile, the unpaid domestic labor the wife performs becomes essential to supporting his career advancement.
Research from Sweden shows that highly successful women are more likely to get divorced than equally successful men, indicating the tension professional success can create in traditional gender roles and relationships.
The risk of divorce is lower for women in “non-traditional” marriages where responsibilities are shared more equally, parenting leave is split, and roles are less rigidly defined by gender. This suggests a more egalitarian approach benefits relationships.
Companies should do more to foster shared parenting responsibilities through programs targeting fathers rather than just mothers. A broader social shift is also needed to properly value domestic labor and parenting work.
Same-sex couples tend to divide labor more equally due to not inheriting traditional gender expectations. This can serve as a model for redistributing domestic work in heterosexual relationships. Equitable partnerships allow both partners to balance careers and family responsibilities.

Here are the key points about division of labor in same-sex couples based on the passages:

Studies show same-sex couples divide household chores and childcare responsibilities more equitably than opposite-sex couples. Without gender assumptions and societal expectations of roles, they have to negotiate division freely.
Lisa mentions she and her partner split things equally and are not stuck in traditional roles. That morning she handled drop-off duties while her partner dealt with something from their son’s school the day before.
Appreciating each other’s efforts makes a big difference. Both partners feel pressure to be good caregivers/nurturers.
Claire, in her same-sex relationship, notes the setup feels less weighed down by stereotypes. Neither can fall back on traditional roles. It feels more exploratory.
Division of labor may become less equitable once same-sex couples have children, as arrangements start resembling heterosexual families with one partner focusing more on career and the other on childcare/housework.
What gets measured gets managed. If household labor was formally valued and compensated through policy, it may be distributed more evenly between partners through changed social norms and incentives.
The author makes an effort to include men and fathers in household tasks by consciously asking them to participate. This helps counter long-standing stereotypes and pushes fathers to take on more responsibility at home.
However, she feels a bit awkward playing the “gender police” role. Ultimately, achieving balance requires individual couples to have open discussions within their own homes.
Research shows people hold women like “Jennifer” to higher cleanliness standards than men like “John” for the same level of mess. Both men and women showed this bias.
One approach is for women to care less about standards and expectations. But real change requires communication between partners to log responsibilities and rebalance tasks over time in a spirit of love, not resentment.
American women still do disproportionately more household work. Getting men involved benefits relationships by increasing happiness and even sexual intimacy for opposite-sex couples.
The author acknowledges debates around notions of “fun” and whether women are perceived as less fun or lighthearted than men at work. True balance requires embracing multiple aspects of workplace culture.

The passage discusses the need for women to take more control over their work-life balance by renegotiating the distribution of domestic labor and responsibilities at home. It suggests some concrete steps women can take, including:

Tracking time spent on household tasks to get an accurate picture of the imbalance.
Cleanly handing over entire categories of work (like laundry) to partners, so they take on all related planning and mental labor.
Using Eve Rodsky’s “Fair Play” card game to systematically negotiate and assign household labor.
Resisting the urge to criticize partners’ work and allowing them to find their own system, to build confidence and encourage ongoing participation.
Taking an active role in household finances rather than leaving it solely to partners, to feel more empowered and in control of decisions.

The overall message is that small behavioral changes at home around labor distribution, communication and delegation of responsibility can help women gain back valuable time and a greater sense of power over their lives and careers. But it requires women to be more proactive and their partners to be willing to adjust the status quo.

The article discusses tensions that can arise when a woman outearns her male partner. It provides some suggestions for how couples can address this issue in a constructive way:

Talk openly about finances and acknowledge it may feel awkward at first. Bring humor and show love and appreciation for each other.
Create a joint budget to understand current contributions and ensure shared financial goals.
Recognize unpaid labor like childcare, household tasks, etc. that one partner provides which has financial value and importance for the family.
When both partners work demanding jobs, share household chores equally to defuse tensions rather than view one career as more important.
As a pioneering couple navigating new cultural terrain, go easy on each other and see yourselves as adventurers building the relationship together.

It also discusses potential challenges men may face with the loss of traditional status and power dynamics changing. While advocating for women’s advancement, it acknowledges research showing humans strongly dislike losses and will fight to retain what they have. Men in particular may view gains in women’s power as a zero-sum loss for themselves. The suggestions aim to help couples have constructive conversations about finances and navigate relationship changes in an equitable way.

Organizational psychologist Jennifer Jordan notes that when people feel their power is threatened, they become more risky, reckless, stingy, paranoid and untrusting in an effort to hold onto power.
According to loss aversion theory and status quo bias, people strongly dislike and resist any changes that could result in a loss, even if the current situation is poor. This makes embracing changes that reduce men’s power very difficult for them.
Interviewees suggest change threatens men’s egos and they will dig in their heels to neutralize the perceived threat to their status. Ways need to be found to affirm men’s worth even when they aren’t at the top.
Historically, being a white man almost guaranteed success and access to power and jobs. But now with more diversity, white men have to compete with more groups. Some resent this changing landscape and perceive equal treatment of others as discrimination against themselves.
Studies show reverse discrimination claims often neglect that men, especially white men, still dominate leadership. But many men subjectively feel disadvantaged by diversity initiatives. This can fuel hostile behavior in the workplace.

Here is a summary of the provided text:

Psychologist Terri Ratliff conducted a study across the US and Netherlands to understand how romantic partners feel about each other’s success. Using implicit association tests to uncover hidden biases, she found that for many men, a female partner’s success in personal, professional or academic areas made the men feel worse about themselves. Men seem to view success as a limited resource, so their partner’s success implies their own failure.

Sociologist Allison Pugh studied working-class couples. The men she interviewed were angry at job insecurity and changes to traditional gender roles. However, they directed their anger at home, feeling entitled to deference from their wives despite their own situation. In contrast, the women felt more freedom and options despite economic hardships.

Extreme examples show some men feel threatened and lash out violently against female empowerment, pointing to a sense of damaged entitlement. Overall, the emergence of new gender norms has left many men feeling a loss of the arrangements of previous generations and unsure of their place, while concepts of masculinity remain rigidly defined. Experts argue society needs to allow men more flexible, blended life options just as it has expanded acceptable roles for women.

Jon Malesic quit his full-time job to follow his wife’s career, which allowed more flexibility but came at a social cost. He felt he had “failed” at the only thing he was supposed to do.
Malesic has since studied workaholic culture and how it impacts men’s mental health and ability to burn out. He believes the “breadwinner ethos” - the expectation that men be the primary financial providers - remains deeply ingrained.
Even Malesic, who is open about these issues, does not discuss his non-traditional situation with male friends. There is a “cone of silence” around it, showing how rigid gender expectations remain.
Research found marriages were 33% more likely to end in divorce if the husband did not have a full-time job. This reflects expectations that men fulfill the breadwinner role.
The ideal that men and women would equally share childcare and housework has not been achieved. Fixing expectations of masculinity is key to balanced roles at home and work.
Stay-at-home dads remain very rare, around 5% in the US and 18% with a broader definition. Sociological research suggests boys are socialized from a young age into rigid views of masculinity and the father role.
The article argues that we need to broaden expectations for boys and men to include caring roles like stay-at-home parenting. While daughters are taught they can do anything, sons are not taught equally that caring roles are viable options.
Research shows boys still feel pressure to conform to stereotypes like strength and toughness. They are discouraged from expressing emotions. This limits the roles boys think are acceptable.
Interviewing Kenny Marshall, who has been a stay-at-home dad for 20 years while his wife Cynt is a successful CEO, provides an inspiring example of breaking stereotypes. Kenny valued being there for their adopted children over pursuing his own career.
Kenny handles rare “man moments” of feeling unheard by talking through his feelings alone. He is generous and doesn’t feel competitive with Cynt’s success. He recognizes the partnership allows them both to excel.
Kenny’s example challenges expectations and shows men what they may be missing by not participating more in family care. Broadening expectations for boys and men is key to empowering both genders and achieving a new balanced power model.
The authors acknowledge they don’t have all the answers but hope to spark discussion and debate about reimagining power structures.
They emphasize listening to the stories of women innovating within systems to create change from within, like Zanny Minton Beddoes reordering meetings and Lucie Cisse bringing basic amenities to Senegal.
They discuss systemic experiments worth considering, like gender quotas, addressing bias in hiring/promotions, and splitting roles to allow job sharing.
Christine Lagarde is highlighted as embodying using power differently and proudly within institutions to drive positive change from the top down.
The overall message is that women don’t need to abandon power positions but should focus on innovating new brands and models of leadership within existing structures to gradually remake them over time through perseverance and collective action.
Christine Lagarde has been an inspiring role model for millions of women as the head of the IMF. She combines empathy with determination and has long advocated for more women in positions of power globally.
Lagarde believes true power is inclusive and allows one to reject policies they disagree with. She sees the traditional “power over” model as flawed and in need of change, but believes men won’t willingly change so it requires “intruders” to confront the status quo.
She keeps lists of qualified women to hand skeptical male executives who claim they don’t know any qualified women. She also innovated by requiring her organization to count time spent raising children as valid professional experience, recognizing parenting skills are useful leadership training.
Lagarde emphasizes the importance of targets, quotas and metrics to actually drive changes in representation and diversity. Companies need clear goals and accountability across levels to make progress.
Her willingness to disrupt outdated notions and challenge the status quo serves as an exemplar for how creative thinking is needed to overcome invisible barriers that hold women back. Monitoring representation and considering diverse forms of work experience are some effective practices.
Performance evaluations of women were often negatively impacted by biases toward traditionally masculine leadership traits like assertiveness, charisma, ambition. Even when women outperformed men, they received lower ratings on these dimensions.
Two effective solutions highlighted are bias training and rewriting evaluation checklists. Done well, bias training can help recognize that leadership qualities may present differently in people who don’t fit the stereotypical male mold. Checklists should include more women’s strengths like empathy and listening.
One company implemented unconscious bias observers, a bias “cheat sheet,” and deep discussions examining underlying issues and redefining leadership. This led to upward movement of women and improved outcomes.
Companies should expand what skills are needed for roles rather than relying on traditional resumes, and find alternative paths for developing skills without relocation requirements that disadvantage women.
Mandating a diverse slate of candidates and looking at multiple women candidates helps reduce biases by viewing people as individuals rather than representatives of their gender.
Focused efforts are needed early in careers to address biases impacting first promotions, and at senior levels where promotions are more vulnerable to unconscious biases. Pipeline development must be deliberate in including diverse candidates.
Research shows that companies with more gender diversity and racial/ethnic diversity in management are more likely to be economically successful, outperforming peers. Companies with higher percentages of women in management see about 20-21% higher returns, while companies with higher percentages of racially/ethnically diverse management see around 36% higher returns.
Women leaders are more likely than men to sponsor and advocate for other women and minorities. Having more women in senior roles has a “multiplier effect” in promoting more diversity throughout the organization.
Many companies are embracing a concept of “radical authenticity” where employees can bring their whole selves to work. This involves recognizing individual differences, acknowledging problems/vulnerabilities, and celebrating diversity. Companies are expanding employee resource/affinity groups and encouraging all workers to participate.
Encouraging open discussions about inclusion and belonging, without initially focusing on goals or quotas, can help build understanding between groups. Leaders sharing vulnerably about their own experiences can also promote empathy and connection across differences.
Flexible work policies that allow working from home a few days a week are popular with employees and can reduce burnout. However, overwork is still common as employees feel pressure to be constantly available. This remains a particular challenge for women leaders.
Companies are implementing initiatives to combat employee burnout, such as encouraging workers to take vacation days and setting email etiquette guidelines. Leaders modeling these anti-burnout behaviors is especially important.
However, the flexible working arrangements resulting from these initiatives have led to men spending more time in the office compared to women. This can negatively impact women’s careers due to lack of “face time” and comparative opportunities.
Organizational policies like expanded parental leave can help address this imbalance. Individual actions like scheduling important meetings only on fixed in-office days can also help.
The authors argue that truly exceptional leadership is needed - top executives openly talking about balancing work and life, like leaving to take a kid to the doctor or working from home part-time. This will encourage more men to seek better work-life integration.
Younger generations, especially Gen Z, expect more flexibility and won’t accept traditional workplace norms. Companies must adapt to attract and retain top talent. Leaders modeling a new “power style” focused on flexibility, diversity and inclusion will be needed to manage future generations.
While systemic changes are important, individuals can also take small actions to disrupt traditional power dynamics and establish a new, more equitable norms in their own spheres of influence. The book provides advice and examples for how readers can do this.
The authors acknowledge that while they have included some of their own stories and experiences, this book is largely based on reporting and interviews with hundreds of women from diverse backgrounds.
They aim to examine power and gender issues broadly rather than focus on any one group. However, they recognize that race, sexual orientation, and other factors influence people’s experiences with power.
The book focuses primarily on gender and power but does not claim to comprehensively address how these issues intersect with race, sexual orientation, class, etc. They acknowledge more work needs to be done on these topics.
The authors rely on social science and neuroscience research, though note not all studies address specific issues for different groups. More research is still needed.
They do not heavily focus on the impact of class and financial resources on power, though acknowledge this is also an important factor.
Many women interviewed asked to remain anonymous due to concerns about backlash from employers or personal issues. This underscores the sensitive nature of discussing power dynamics.
In summary, the book aims to provide a broad examination of gender and power using reporting, but recognizes more work needs to done addressing how these issues intersect with other identities and backgrounds.

Here is a summary of the acknowledgments and thanks sections:

The authors thank their research assistants and interns for their work doing interviews, research, fact checking, and other tasks essential to completing the book. This includes coordinating schedules and managing deadlines.
They are grateful to their families for their support during the writing process. One author thanks her children for their adventures in Senegal where early interviews were conducted, and for reading drafts and providing feedback.
The other author thanks her daughter for inspiration and emotional support during the writing. She also thanks her two children for their pride in her work and for expanding their worlds through their own accomplishments while in school.
Both authors express gratitude to their families for providing joy and being their “rocks” or sources of stability during the book project. Family members helped keep them company during long work hours.
The publishers acknowledge key colleagues and employees who helped with tasks like formatting footnotes and fact checking. Their work improving the manuscript was invaluable.

So in summary, the acknowledgments express deep appreciation for the personal and professional support received from partners, children, assistants, and colleagues during the challenging process of researching and writing the book. Family and friends played important roles in motivating and grounding the authors.

Here is a summary of the key points from the sources provided:

Discrimination and lack of inclusion remain persistent challenges for women and minorities in the workplace. Despite progress, the gender pay gap continues and women still face higher rates of sexual harassment. (Sources 1-4)
Following the Black Lives Matter movement in 2020, many major companies pledged donations totaling over $67 billion in support of racial justice causes. However, more work is needed to translate financial commitments into meaningful policy and culture changes. (Sources 5-6)
Traditionally male-dominated fields like STEM have seen growing numbers of female college graduates in recent decades, reflecting changing social norms and attitudes. However, gender disparities in certain areas like leadership roles and compensation have been slower to dismantle. (Sources 7-14)
LGBTQ+ individuals also face unique challenges at work, including lack of protections in many states, discrimination, and mental health issues like depression stemming from socioeconomic stressors. While awareness has increased, inclusive policies and cultures are still developing at many organizations. (Source 15)
Ongoing issues around diversity, equity and inclusion show that achieving substantive progress requires addressing biases, disparities and power imbalances at both individual and systemic levels within companies and institutions. Financial commitments alone are usually not sufficient to create lasting change.

Here is a summary of the article:

The article discusses how the LGBTQ+ community fares in the workplace based on a report by McKinsey. Some key points:

LGBTQ+ individuals face unique challenges in the workplace, including lack of inclusion and fears of discrimination. This can negatively impact their work experience and career outcomes.
Surveys have found that only around half of LGBTQ+ employees feel comfortable being open about their sexual orientation or gender identity at work.
LGBTQ+ employees report receiving less support from managers and facing more microaggressions compared to non-LGBTQ+ employees. This takes a toll on their well-being and engagement.
Companies are increasingly adopting policies like same-sex partner benefits and inclusive healthcare to promote inclusion. However, more work still needs to be done to change attitudes and make LGBTQ+ employees feel truly valued.
Allyship from other employees is important. Managers can also take steps to demonstrate they value diversity and will protect LGBTQ+ employees from discrimination. This helps foster a more supportive environment.

In summary, the article discusses the challenges still facing LGBTQ+ individuals in the workplace according to recent reports, and the steps companies can take to promote more inclusion.

This page summarizes an article from the website s-miserable about the unequal division of household labor and its consequences. Some key points:

Studies show that even when women earn more or are the sole breadwinners, men do not share household tasks equally. This holds for both heterosexual and same-sex couples.
Factors like perceived gender norms and the relative earnings of partners can influence the division of labor at home. Men tend to do less when wives earn more.
The unequal division of domestic work has economic impacts like the “motherhood penalty” where women’s careers suffer from child responsibilities. It also affects well-being through greater stress and exhaustion for women.
Solutions proposed include recognizing unpaid domestic labor in economic measures, encouraging equal parenting from the beginning, and changing social attitudes about traditional gender roles in the household. Addressing inequality at home is important for advancing women’s equality and fair sharing of responsibilities in families.

Here is a summary of the book Against Housework by Pat Mainardi:

The book is a Marxist feminist analysis and critique of housework and the gendered division of labor within the household.
Mainardi argues that housework is oppressive, unfulfilling “women’s work” that is undervalued and disempowering. It constitutes unpaid labor that primarily benefits men and reinforces the capitalist system.
She traces the historical development of the nuclear family household and division of labor along gender lines. Capitalism commodified goods that were previously produced domestically, but unpaid housework remained the domain of women.
Mainardi uses labor statistics to show how much time women spend on housework compared to men and argues this is a form of exploitation. Housework deprived women of opportunities for paid work and hindered their social, political and personal development.
She calls for housework to be socialized and shared equally between men and women through public services like community kitchens, laundries, childcare centers. This would liberate women from isolation and drudgery in the home and allow them to fully participate in public life.
The book was a founding text of the feminist movement arguing that “the personal is political” and critiquing both capitalism and patriarchy as reinforcing women’s subordination through the institution of the family and gender roles. It sparked debate about domestic labor, work-life balance, and women’s liberation.

In summary, the book provides a Marxist feminist analysis of housework as unpaid, oppressive “women’s work” that reinforces gender inequality and women’s subordination within both the home and wider capitalist society. It calls for socializing domestic labor to liberate women from isolation and enable their full participation and empowerment.

Here is a summary of the key points about cognitive behavioral theory (CBT), confidence, and the authors’ investigation and book on the subject from the provided text:

CBT is mentioned but not described. It appears to be in reference to cognitive behavioral therapy, a common approach in psychology.
Confidence is discussed in multiple contexts. Lack of confidence is linked to lack of power and risk aversion. Leadership and wielding power require confidence. The authors’ book, The Confidence Code, explores how to develop confidence.
The authors investigated barriers to women’s confidence through interviews and research, which informed their book. Their goal was to better understand how confidence relates to power for women.
Their investigation and book sought to shine light on how women can develop confidence, as confidence is tied to leadership ability, decision-making power, and overall empowerment for women. The text does not provide many details about their methodology or findings.
In summary, the key points are that confidence is important for power and leadership, the authors studied this issue as it relates to women, and their book aimed to help women bolster their confidence by exploring its relationship to power based on their research. CBT is briefly mentioned but not described in the context provided.

Here are the key points from the passages:

eggeness, Misty, 155–56: No context provided, can’t summarize.
Hochschild, Arlie, 163: No context provided, can’t summarize.
Inesi, Ena, 57: No context provided, can’t summarize.
International Monetary Fund (IMF) - Georgieva as managing director, 36–40: Kristalina Georgieva became the managing director of the IMF. She instituted some changes like reordering the hierarchy and creating a more inclusive workplace culture. Studies show women’s increased participation in the workforce can boost GDP.
Lagarde, Christine, 226–29, 238: As head of the European Central Bank, Lagarde leads with a purpose-driven style. She handles lazy sexism with a ready response and sees power as enabling leadership rather than dominance.
Johnson, Matt, 186: No context provided, can’t summarize.
Johnson, Rady, 208–9, 213, 217: No context provided, can’t summarize.
Johnson, Stefanie, 83, 84, 203: No context provided, can’t summarize.
Jordan, Jennifer, 70–72, 74, 200: No context provided, can’t summarize.
JPMorgan Chase, 128–29: No context provided, can’t summarize.

Hope this helps capture the key information provided for each reference. Let me know if you need any clarification or have additional questions.

Romance, men judged on potential, not just current achievements. Women often judged more on looks and potential motherhood skills.
Workplace designed more for traditional male model of separate work and personal life. Lack of flexibility and support for caregiving responsibilities.
Perfectionism and other burdensome biases. Tips for limiting free labor beyond work hours and being authentic and owning your strengths rather than perceived weaknesses.
Power of kindness and offering guidance to male peers. Important to nudge peers in positive direction but avoid laughing at them or putting them down.
Work-life balance still elusive for many women despite flexibility options. “Blend” proposed as alternative to integrate various life roles. Challenges for men also in adopting more balanced holistic lives.
Power aversion theory - some women see costs of power as too high due to anxiety, lesser perceived value of power for women’s lives, fear of power. Conflicts with feminine socialization.
Alternative power model proposed focused on “power to” vs “power over”. Emphasizing influence through authenticity, collaboration, care for others’ well-being. Seen as more sustainable and life-giving approach.

Here is a summary of the key points from the passages:

Overwork is a problem, as evidenced by the number of deaths from overwork reported by the WHO. Unhealthy work hours are defined as over 48 hours per week.
The “whole self” principle and radical authenticity allow people to bring their full selves to work, including personal interests and values. This can help address work-life balance issues.
Women especially experience high stress levels related to work.
Finding work that truly engages and inspires people (“work that works”) helps address work-life balance better than rigid schedules.
Some tips for better work-life balance include creating creativity breaks, not taking work so personally, focusing on outcomes not face time, keeping meetings productive, and being fully present at the office.
Covid accelerated changes around remote and flexible work arrangements that can promote work-life balance and gender equality. However, it also created new tensions around diversity, equity and inclusion in some workplaces.
Women still face discord and discrimination in many workplaces, though efforts are being made to diversify workforces and make work cultures more inclusive.

#book-summary

The Power Code - Katty Kay & Claire Shipman