Am I the special case who had a few, um, vivacious discourses about Sheryl Sandberg with loved ones over the Thanksgiving weekend?
Notwithstanding for individuals who don’t normally pursue Facebook or its COO, the (inexorably critical) reports about the internet based life mammoth in the previous couple of weeks have demonstrated hard to overlook.
It began, obviously, with the New York Times’ blockbuster uncover of the organization’s endeavors to minimize the Cambridge Analytica and Russian intruding outrages—and the exposure that it contracted obscure comms firm Definers to dishonor against Facebook demonstrators. Sandberg, who was emphatically embroiled in the awful conduct, at first denied thinking about the firm. At that point, the day preceding Thanksgiving, she conceded that she had in certainty “got few messages where Definers was referenced.”
The one-two punch of the report, trailed by Sandberg’s Definers flip-slump, released a surge of inclusion of the COO. She ought to leave! She’s accepting any penalty for Mark Zuckerberg! She’d be out of an occupation—however Facebook can’t fire her since she’s a lady! She’s “eternity corrupted!” She can’t be both a “transcending women’s activist” and an “impressive head working officer!”
For me, comprehending all the uncovers and hot takes has implied figuring out how to hold two apparently opposing convictions in the meantime. One: Sandberg’s sexual orientation matters, and is inseparable from the manner in which she’s being judged. Two: Sandberg’s sex doesn’t make a difference, and has nothing to do with the way that she’s responsible for her activities as COO.
Some analysts have solicited what the recently discolored view from Sandberg, apparently the world’s best-known agent, implies for expert ladies. Yet, I’m not persuaded that is the correct inquiry. When we discuss portrayal and the intensity of placing ladies in C-suite jobs like head working officer, the expression frequently is: “On the off chance that you can see it, you can be it.” as a general rule however, we can’t be Sheryl Sandberg. She’s a particular case—as much a VIP and social symbol as an official.
Maybe the better inquiry for working ladies is what would we be able to gain from Sandberg and her obvious go wrong? Here’s one thing I’ll remove: True equity implies inclining in to power—and bearing the full weight of the repercussions for utilizing it impulsively.