What if you are not the exception, you are the rule?
There are several reasons why I’ll never climb all the way to the top of a corporate ladder, and one of those is that I’m a woman that works in finance in America.
Another reason is that I really like to solve problems. This problem-solving tendency doesn’t just apply to math problems in my individual role. It also applies to process, procedure, policy, and system problems.
Unfortunately, this type of problem-solving typically offends people in an existing corporate hierarchy. After all, somebody established the process, procedure, policy, or system that you are trying to fix. And that person isn’t just going to be offended if you offer a solution to the problem.
They are going to be offended if you even acknowledge that there is a problem.
Being a problem-solver means being willing to state how things actually work: the current state. Therefore, one of the ways people stop problem-solving before it begins is by refusing to agree on how things actually work. If they can make the current state seem a lot more complicated and nuanced than it actually is, then it makes their convoluted process, procedure, policy or system seem more justifiable.
But most things aren’t so complicated and nuanced that there is no pattern (or rule) whatsoever. Sure, there are exceptions to every rule… but even this statement implies there is a rule.
The rule exists, even if stating it is considered offensive.
If you found the first sentence of this post offensive, then you were offended by a rule. Since I didn’t immediately follow the fact that most women currently alive and working in finance in America (including me) will never reach the top of a corporate ladder with some sort of caveat about the fact that there are exceptions to this rule, you may have found yourself scoffing, “Well, that’s not a fair statement.” But let me ask this:
What makes it unfair?
Why would assuming the rule applies to me, instead of assuming I’m an exception, seem offensive?
Is it the rule that is offensive, or is it the fact that I refuse to act like there isn’t a rule?
I think bad rules can change. I think problems can be solved (even the big, systemic kind). However, I do not think that acting like there isn’t a rule or a problem, or obscuring the fact that there is one by focusing only on the exceptions, helps anyone.
We need to start talking about bad rules and big problems. We have to acknowledge the current state: how things actually work.
Because that’s the only way to change how things work.
