Corporate Clones
Must a ceo or manager be "married with children"?

By Shere Hite

("The Daddy System": Corporate Fathers who Reproduce)

Of the global Fortune 500 corporations, almost all are headed by c.e.o.'s who are married with children. But in today's world, 50% of most Western populations are living unmarried, single. Why are married c.e.o.'s the norm? Do company leaders today believe the most reliable people are those married with children?

In my research for the book Sex&Business, I asked c.e.o.'s of some of the world's largest companies (only one was not himself married with children) if they believed the head of a company represented the "moral system" of the culture, and therefore should be married with children -- or if a c.e.o. could be single or even gay.

Most replied that they would be inclined to look for a successor or promote someone who would be married with children. They also added that they would be likely to respect ceo's of other companies more if they too were married with children. When I asked why, most (though they seemed not to have consciously considered this point before) commented that this could prove that the man could handle many things well, i.e., as the head of one large bank told me, "If a man can make his private life work, there is a good chance he can make a company work, too."

I countered that being single could be even more complicated than being married, and asked therefore if that would prove that someone single could handle even more complicated matters? The answer: no, "being married shows the best organization".

Corporate clones, a c.e.o. cloning system, is this what we have? If in today's Western world, as noted, half of the population is "single"; -- this can mean various things, by the way: that someone is living with another but not officially married, or that someone is "all alone"; or that someone is gay; a single person can have a great variety of types of lives. This implies that inside corporations, probably at least half the employees are single. If the corporation (like many .coms) has young employees, the percentage of single people can be greater.

If, however, top management seeks to recruit for its upper ranks principally married men with children, then this will limit those who are potential candidates -- and also limit the future growth of a company.

Why? Because it will limit the variety of individuals, each with a unique energy, who can give executive input into a company. If employees feel that they must be married with children to get ahead, then some will marry, whether or not they feel like it, leading to a moral compromise that would have implications for the energy level of that person, and thus for the energy level of the corporation. The "leader" (or "company chauffeur" as one of the top global Fortune 100 c.e.o.'s told me, "the company's chauffeur, it's like driving a car") must be inspired to find new directions for the company, must be able to see through the tangle of finances, personalities on the board of directors, and issues of daily life, to larger goals for the company.

Inspiration is crucial, and feeling one is a "good person" with a positive outlook essential to being inspired. Making too many compromises with one's inner beliefs or idealism in order to "fit in" does not make for good leaders; although a person may get to the top being cynical and machiavellian, this doesn't mean that he or she will lead the company in a positive direction, or be successful financially. Idealistic leaders are just as good at making profits as cynical leaders, evidence shows.

We have come to believe that the head of a company should be a married man with children - just as we seem to expect this in our politicians. Why? This replicates the traditional "religious" system, i.e., god (though not married!) ruling from his heaven, decrees that human beings should be married (going "two by two into the arc") and reproduce; this is "normal" and "a moral duty". It became clear during the "sex scandal trial" of President Clinton that we expect our political leaders to be not only effective, but also "morally correct", to represent the traditional idea of morality.

The question that went unanswered during that worldwide debate (and remains unanswered) is: does a male leader or c.e.o. being married imply something about his policies toward women in the company or country? The feeling seems to be that today a man's attitude to his family/wife/daughter symbolizes his attitude to women's rights.
Is this logical? Russian heads of state have usually not kept their wives at their sides, but in the background at a considerable distance, hardly visible during campaigns. Similarly the heads of countries like Saudi Arabia do not appear on state occasions with their wives for photograph sessions. In Western countries such as the U.K., U.S. or Germany, however, a male politician is expected to show himself together with his wife. Does this mean that these Western European leaders are more favorably disposed to women's rights (in that they present their wives publicly, let themselves be seen as part of a unit with a woman) than male leaders who appear alone? Or does it mean that leaders who appear with their wives and children are "showing off the merchandise" much like a pasha of old was said to display his wives and cattle to strangers -- and so show less understanding of women's rights? In practice, looking at the various track records, it would seem that the men who appear publicly with their wives, especially when the wife has a personal sphere of action that is publicly visible (whether or not allied to the government/her husband), are much more likely to keep women's rights alive and in the forefront, giving women visibility in their governments as well, than other, more "single-style" leaders.

Should we, therefore, conclude that c.e.o.'s who are married with children are more likely to advance the cause of women's rights within a company, than single male c.e.o.'s? Or is the reverse true?

Younger men inside corporations who do not identify with the image of "married man with children" often disqualify themselves early on from aiming for top corporate power, even when they have the qualities that would make them excellent c.e.o.'s. In my research into today's corporations, many younger men tell me that they would not like to become c.e.o. of the company, "it's not for me". They feel they would have to distort their personality and values too much to squeeze into the slot, "fit the mold". The question is: should they have to "fit the mold", or should they be allowed to make new molds? Do we want a clone system?

Some corporations with "clone cultures" limit the types of people who are promoted (obviously women are usually excluded, though they are more likely to be selected if they are married than single), missing out on valuable types of energy. Just as everyone needs a varied diet, also corporations need a variety of types of people to keep them energized: they need women (single and married), and men who are single as well as men who are married.

Though policies of who-should-be-promoted are not official, they operate as smoothly as if they were. This makes them relatively easy to change; if we look inside ourselves to discover whether we unconsciously believe that "married men with children" are "best qualified to lead" then we can see where these ideas start - and can end.


Shere Hite , cultural historian, is internationally recognized for her work on sexual behavior. She is author of "The Hite Report on Female Sexuality," which has sold more than 20 million copies and been translated into 13 languages. Her other books include "The Hite Report on Male Sexuality," "Women and Love," "The Hite Report on the Family: Growing Up Under Patriarchy" and "The Divine Comedy of Ariadne and Jupiter."
Shere Hite has been an instructor of female sexuality at New York University and has also lectured at Harvard, Columbia, Cambridge and Oxford universities. She served as director for the National Organization for Women's feminist sexuality project from 1972 to 1978, and has directed Hite Research International since 1978. Shere Hite currently works as a cultural commentator for many international newspapers and publications, as well as continuing to direct Hite Research.
Shere Hite's latest book is called "Sex & Business". It challenges both men and women to look long and hard at their own actions and beliefs, as well as those of the people they work with, and asks them to develop a new and more effective way of working and communicating with each other in the workplace. From love in the workplace to sexual harassment, from men managing women to women managing men and women managing women, this book covers every aspect and hidden corner of corporate relationships. Only through an understanding of the drivers, motivators and attitudes can we hope to bulldoze through the walls we have built up and begin a new era of mutual understanding, respect and success.