FINANCIAL TIMES: Turmoil in the kingdom of fathers and sons:
Shere Hite argues that male conformity at work is as much a problem for men as it is for women
Financial Times, Feb 19, 2000, 1,091 words

Corporations did not always pose a challenge to the traditional social order because "men were hunters", whether in a natural jungle or a corporate jungle.

The arrival of large numbers of women in the workplace, however, means the office no longer resembles the traditional social order based on the family and its prototype relationships.

For several decades, corporations did not challenge men's identity. The corporate landscape was predominantly male, so nothing was out of sync with the traditional social order: male competition could follow the Biblical models - sons with or against fathers, brother with or against brother, and so on.

Corporations have traditionally been kingdoms in which "sons" and "fathers" by turn competed with each other or worked together: young and old men jousted or fought together for power, glory and money.

Today, men question their place in the sun: if work is not exclusively theirs, what is? Does it matter? How much time should be devoted to work, how much to private life? Is time at work real life?

One way of understanding relationships between men at work is the Freudian view: men are in combat (competition) and the son fights his father for power. Some would claim this is "basic male nature".

But while Freud might claim it is natural for sons to try to overtake and dominate their fathers, one does not find this scenario in classics such as Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet (the son of Capulet does not try to wrest power from his father), nor does Arthur Miller portray the son of Willie Loman in Death of a Salesman as trying to dominate his father. On the other hand, many men in corporations do feel that part of the fun is competing with the other guys.

The "human nature is unchangeable" view implies that men can't change, that sons will always challenge fathers. But is this true?

My research has turned up two reasons for male attitudes to each other, whether fighting or bonding, inside corporations. Both imply that flexibility is a big part of human nature, and that change is not only possible but probable - that what we call "human nature" is very much shaped and created by society.

First, men's loyalty to other men (and desire to be accepted by them, work with them) is increased by the lack of closeness most boys felt growing up with their fathers. In most cases, the relationship between father and son is not close (with exceptions).

Boys learn their understanding of relationships with men from this early encounter, no matter how distant it may have been. Boys in my research, for the Hite Reports on Male Sexuality and Family, repeatedly state that they did not know their fathers very well, that their fathers rarely talked to them about their feelings, personal thoughts or relationships. In fact, most boys said they had never had a real conversation with their fathers about a personal topic. Most expressed a longing to have had some deeper experience of communication and acceptance.

Boys often become fascinated by the power of this emotionally silent and mysterious monolith - the "older man".

One said: "I didn't know my father, really, I didn't know what went on in his head. He went to work, he came home, he got angry at odd moments and everybody seemed to have to help rearrange things so his anger would go away and he, the god, would be pacified. I used to ask my mother what was I supposed to be like - him?"

Another said: "My toddler son said to his mother (when they thought I wasn't around) - 'Why doesn't daddy say anything?' I had managed to look just like my dad looked to me."

Like the Michelangelo fresco of Adam reaching for God's hand in "The Creation", their fingers never quite touch. This incomplete relationship affects many men for ever.

A cycle persists of the younger man, or a woman, not being able to get through to the grown-up, perfectly closed man, who in turn feels less and less loved.

My research also shows that what we call male nature is, in good part, socially created at puberty. Harsh puberty initiation rites make boys learn to bond with and/or fear men in groups; they learn to try (at least outwardly) to conform to the behaviour of the men in groups around them.

These boyhood events, not noticed (or taken seriously) by Freud or others, came out strikingly in my research, showing that boys at puberty learn a bitter lesson: they speak repeatedly of their pain and emotional turmoil around ages 10 to 12.

What they describe is that early in life most of them felt very close to their mothers; from the age of 10 to 12, pressure was put on them, usually by older boys at school, to "shape up", "be a man". Failure to heed these messages means loss of status within the group - or worse.

Most boys were emotionally distressed during this period: they didn't want to betray their mother by taking on new, disdainful attitudes, but eventually came to realise that they had no choice but to join the male group.

As adults, many boys as men apply the same logic at work, concluding that they must conform to the group of men in an office or a corporation (or on a construction site), or they will not fit in, and certainly not get ahead. Many men thus feel nervous with the presence of career women, and about breaking rules of conformity to male groups.

Although joining the "world of the fathers" is a frightening experience for many boys and men (and women), conquering it can become the biggest adventure they undertake in life. My research indicates that later, however, becoming such a "fearsome male monolith/power person" can leave many men feeling unsatisfied and disillusioned.

Many younger men now want to discover a new way forward but find it difficult to behave differently at work. As boys learned, the approval of other men is very hard to come by - and once you've got it, you'd better not lose it.

Corporate executives today could feel unconsciously uncomfortable being "disloyal" to the men's group at work, by working closely with women on an equal level or promoting women above men.

If men can break the spell of this fear they learned early in life, a fear that to many has become unrecognisable, then the meritocracy that was promised could become a reality. Once it is realised that corporate boardrooms resemble the boys' bully system at school, and that they don't have to, things can change.

So how does a young man make the transition to being an older man in authority without making too many compromises and staying true to himself? It is not easy.

Today, men at work have ambivalent feelings about how to treat women: "letting women be equal" is an idea with justice on its side. But should they work easily with women, blend in, make new choices; or should they try to please the older male authority figures who may prefer signals of an old male-bonding variety?

The challenge is for a man to understand both sides of his identity, his new thinking and his older training, so he can elegantly move to another stage and make the new world of work valid for everyone concerned - the women, his boss and himself. e-mail: s.hite@hite-research.com

* Sex and Business: Ethics at Work is published by Financial Times Prentice-Hall, £19.99.

Business Consulting