Michelle: Most corporate diversity programs are a waste of money. In fact, they might be making things worse for women. Mark: Whoa, that's a bold statement. Companies spend billions on this stuff. You're saying it's not just ineffective, but actively harmful? Michelle: That's the provocative argument at the heart of Lean Out by Marissa Orr. It’s a book that received a lot of praise for its candor, but also stirred up controversy for pushing back so hard against the mainstream feminist narrative. Mark: Marissa Orr... she's not an academic looking from the outside, right? I remember she was deep inside the machine. Michelle: Exactly. A 15-year veteran of Google and Facebook, and a single mother of three. She wrote this book as a direct response to the "Lean In" culture she experienced firsthand, arguing it was a flawed prescription for a misdiagnosed problem. She saw the advice being given and felt it was completely disconnected from the reality most women face. Mark: Okay, I'm intrigued. So what's so wrong with the 'Lean In' idea? On the surface, it sounds empowering—be more assertive, ask for what you want. Michelle: That’s the perfect place to start. Orr argues the entire premise is flawed because it implies that the way men operate is the "correct" way, and women need to change their fundamental behaviors to succeed.

Michelle: She asks this brilliant question: "Is there anything less feminist than implying that men are the ‘norm’ and they’re doing it ‘right,’ and that there’s something inherently less valuable about the way we are as women?" Mark: Huh. When you put it like that, it does sound a bit off. It’s like saying, "To win the game, you have to play like the other team, even if their playbook doesn't suit your strengths." Michelle: Precisely. And she has this incredible story from her time at Google that captures this perfectly. She and a friend attended a two-day women's workshop on "successful communication." Mark: I can already imagine the corporate jargon. Let me guess: "synergize your assertiveness"? Michelle: (Laughs) Close. The instructor started by criticizing women for common communication habits. Things like using exclamation points in emails, which she said makes you seem unserious. Or apologizing too often. Or speaking with emotion. Mark: Wait, so being enthusiastic or empathetic is a bug, not a feature? That sounds absurd. Michelle: It gets worse. The instructor then praised what she called "male" communication styles—speaking with absolute certainty, even when you're just guessing. She celebrated bravado and self-aggrandizement as keys to success. Orr realized that the entire workshop was designed to recondition women into behaving more like a stereotypical, aggressive man. Mark: That’s wild. It’s not about becoming a better leader; it’s about becoming a different person. But what about the confidence argument? The whole "confidence gap" idea is huge. The theory goes that women are held back because they're less confident than men. Michelle: Orr dismantles that, too. She argues that what we call "confidence" is often just a performance of certainty. True confidence, she says, is about self-trust and self-honesty. She points to research showing that overconfidence, which is more common in men, actually leads to worse outcomes, like in stock trading where overconfident men trade more and get lower returns. Mark: Okay, but surely confidence matters in the workplace. You can't just be timid and expect to get ahead. Michelle: Of course. But Orr's point is that the system is set up to reward a very specific performance of confidence—loud, assertive, and unwavering. It doesn't know how to measure quiet competence or collaborative strength. Women are often more collaborative negotiators, looking for a win-win. But in a system that sees negotiation as a zero-sum fight, that collaborative style is misinterpreted as weakness or a lack of confidence. Mark: I see. So the advice to "be more confident" is useless if the system only recognizes one narrow, often counterproductive, version of it. Michelle: Exactly. The advice is trying to fix the woman to fit the system. Orr's entire argument is that we've been looking in the wrong place. The women aren't broken.

Mark: Okay, so if the women aren't the problem, what is? You're saying it's the system itself. How so? What's actually wrong with it? Michelle: Orr uses this brilliant analogy: School vs. Work. Think about it, Mark. In school, women are now outperforming men at every level—undergraduate, master's, and doctoral degrees. Mark: Right, I've seen those stats. The rules in school are clear: study hard, do the work, and you get a good grade. The result is objective. Michelle: Exactly. Your grade is based on competence and effort. The professor doesn't care if you were quiet in class or used exclamation points in your emails. They just care about the quality of your final paper. But the moment you enter the corporate world, the rules change completely. Mark: How do they change? Michelle: Success is no longer objective. It becomes highly subjective. As Orr puts it, "In school, good grades are based on competence and effort. At work, success is predicated on acting competent and making a big show of your effort." It becomes about visibility. Mark: So it's not about doing the work, but being seen doing the work. Or, even better, being seen talking about the work. Michelle: You've got it. And this is where the system really starts to fail women, or at least, fail anyone who isn't a master of self-promotion. Orr tells this story she calls the "Calibration of Doom," which is a hypothetical but painfully real depiction of performance reviews at big tech companies. Mark: The "Calibration of Doom." Sounds ominous. Lay it on me. Michelle: Imagine a conference room. Ten managers are there to decide who gets the one available promotion. They use a forced distribution system, meaning only a certain percentage of people can get top marks. Manager Taylor argues for her employee, Alex, who is brilliant, competent, and has delivered incredible results, but is quiet. Then Manager Vic argues for his employee, Brian. Brian's results are fine, but he's a master of office politics. He's visible. Mark: And let me guess, Vic is a much more aggressive arguer than Taylor. Michelle: Exactly. Vic doesn't just praise Brian; he attacks Alex. He calls him a "total jerk" and "not a team player." He's loud, relentless, and he wears everyone down. After 25 minutes of fighting, the committee gives in. Brian gets the promotion. Not because he was better, but because his manager played the game better. Mark: Wow. So it's like the rules of the game are completely rewritten the day you graduate. The skills that got you an A+ in college—diligence, collaboration, letting the work speak for itself—are suddenly liabilities. Michelle: That's the core of it. The corporate hierarchy, with its zero-sum promotions and subjective evaluations, creates a system that rewards aggression, political maneuvering, and self-aggrandizement. These are behaviors more commonly associated with men, or at least, a certain type of man. It's a system that inherently undervalues traditionally female strengths like consensus-building, empathy, and a focus on collective success. Mark: And the people who benefit from this system are the ones in charge of changing it, right? That feels like a massive catch-22. Michelle: It is. That's why Orr says the system is so resistant to change. The leaders who thrived in that competitive, dog-eat-dog environment are not incentivized to create a more collaborative, objective one. It would undermine the very skills that got them to the top.

Mark: Okay, so if 'leaning in' is the wrong advice and the system is rigged, what's the way forward? Honestly, it sounds a bit hopeless. Michelle: I can see why it feels that way, but Orr's message isn't one of hopelessness. I think it's actually one of liberation. The goal isn't just to get more women into a broken system. The goal is to build a better system for everyone. Mark: A better system? What does that look like? Michelle: It starts with redefining what we value. Instead of just rewarding the person who shouts the loudest in a calibration meeting, we need systems that can objectively measure impact. Think about the "Moneyball" story in baseball—they used data to find undervalued players, not just the ones who "looked" like stars. The corporate world needs its own version of that. Mark: So, more data, less drama. Michelle: Exactly. And it also means expanding our definition of a reward. The only reward in many companies is a promotion up the ladder of authority, which is a structure that primarily motivates people who crave power and control. But what about rewarding people with more autonomy, more creative projects, or more flexibility? Recognition is a huge, underutilized motivator. Mark: That makes so much sense. Not everyone wants to be a manager of people. Some people just want to be masters of their craft. Michelle: Right. And that's the ultimate takeaway. For individuals, especially women, Orr's message is to stop feeling guilty for not wanting what the system tells you to want. Define success on your own terms. Maybe that's the corner office, but maybe it's work-life balance, or doing work that feels meaningful. It's about giving yourself permission to "lean out" of a race you never wanted to run. Mark: I love that. It’s not about giving up, it's about choosing your own finish line. And for leaders, the message is to stop trying to "fix" your female employees and start fixing the broken rungs on the ladder. Or better yet, build more than one ladder. Michelle: Beautifully put. It’s a call for a more honest, more human, and ultimately more effective way of working. It challenges us to think about what we're really rewarding and what kind of success truly matters. Mark: It definitely makes you think. I'm curious what our listeners' experiences are with this. Have you ever felt pressured to act against your nature to get ahead? Or have you seen a "Calibration of Doom" play out at your own workplace? We'd love to hear your stories. Michelle: This is Aibrary, signing off.