An issue that seems to continually create division in the industry is that of equality between men and women or depending on your viewpoint, a lack thereof.
On the female side there are many keen champions of the cause to celebrate and support female success, but does this ‘impact’ their overall achievements as ‘humans of real estate’?
And, are we to assume that because there are no ‘men in real estate’ support groups that they don’t need the same support; even if their role in the family unit is perhaps not a traditional one?
Sarah and James Bell, a married couple who also work together in real estate, share their unique perspective on these issues and more.
As a husband and wife team who co-work and co-parent three amazing daughters, we want to argue that feminism is, at its core, a simple and inclusive doctrine.
We also believe that the issues that are sometimes owned by the women’s cause may have shifted with the times to be challenges shared more by families, parents or organisations.
As a couple who have worked side by side in real estate for almost a decade while raising our daughters, we feel there is a unique perspective here that is sometimes missing from the space.
But let’s get a few things sorted so that we have a common language to discuss gender issues in a modern way.
Defining feminism and sexism
If you can’t see a good reason why women should be paid less than men for the same work, then you are a feminist – that’s all you need.
James says that he didn’t realise he was a feminist, but then someone asked him if his daughters should accept less pay for the same work, and he answered ‘Of course not’.
He says it dawned on him, as the father of three girls, that one of the biggest issues with feminism is there are not nearly enough blokes who understand it for what it is: a pretty straightforward issue about equal pay for equal work.”
If you can’t see a good reason why women should be paid less than men for the same work, then you are a feminist.
Few rational arguments exist against that principle, but that label has been stretched and applied to broader space, so the potency of the original concept is not as intended.
Sexism is something narrower, having less to do with being male or female than with denying someone access to some right or privilege based on their gender.
If you deny someone an employment or advancement opportunity on the basis of their sex (biological) or gender (cultural identity), then you are breaking the law. It is illegal to discriminate based on sex or gender in Australia, regardless of whether the aggrieved party is male or female and even whether the perpetrator is male or female.
The anti-discrimination laws were introduced to create an inclusive workplace that is safe and accessible for all people. So you could argue that championing one side of the cause or the other (women or men) is a divisive way of thinking about gender.
Here is one truth about women (and men) in real estate: GCI is blind.
In real estate, the GCI, or earning potential, of female, male or gender diverse agents is market-based and contingent on performance and results. Nothing else. It is among the flattest of all pay systems because it is market-driven and based on commission.
GCI doesn’t take into account the hours and effort put into the job; it cares about results. GCI doesn’t care if you have kids and you pack them kale and quinoa sandwiches; GCI is about sales revenue. GCI doesn’t care about what is underneath your clothes; it is about effectiveness and outcomes.
Here is one truth about women (and men) in real estate: GCI is blind.
We believe there are flaws with comparing GCI across individuals and across markets, but that is a different conversation. GCI is genderless, ageless, cold and bare.
Elite Agent Magazine surveyed the real estate community earlier this year and the results indicated that gender had no impact on earnings, yet found strong correlations on other variables such as waking time, amount of exercise and hours spent prospecting.
So, are some of these gender groups missing the mark?
Prior to the mid-20th century, there were well-understood social norms for males, females and the family unit: neat, simple, rigid, restrictive.
However, in the wake of that massive transition in our social world, the web of social, cultural and economic factors that weave together in modern life are more complex than a binary division between male and female.
Even gender itself is understood as a more fluid and cultural concept than it was in the Stepford era.
More than ever before, we need some acknowledgement of the complexity of modern life and the modern family, not more inter-gender and intra-gender comparisons, nor the relegation of women to their own space – or their own place.
Now, let’s talk about having it all.
Adulting in the 21st century can be hard terrain for everyone, and our generation are the pioneers, confronting issues that previous generations couldn’t have imagined and trying to have it all.
What does that even mean? A family, a career, appreciating wealth, luxury, leisure, interests, professional development, squad goals, fitness… And with what army?
Sheryl Sandberg, a Facebook executive, famously wrote the book Lean In, a manifesto that encourages women to grab corporate opportunities and aim their professional arrows high, because that’s what she has done. She had remarkably balanced motherhood, interests, fitness and affluence with her corporate ascendency.
‘Having it all’ assumes a lot of structural support is accessible or available to all women. It also defines female success at an intolerably high level.
For many women, the Sandberg manifesto created an enormous cultural pressure to attain ‘it all’, putting the onus on women and omitting an acknowledgement of the supportive structural, social and cultural means that it takes to achieve ‘it all’.
Ms Sandberg later tragically lost her husband and, in the wake of his passing, she apologised for Lean In, acknowledging that the good life she had achieved had drawn on much of the conscientiousness of her spouse; she hadn’t been leaning in as much as leaning on him.
Corporate ‘leaning’, whether you are male or female takes a supportive family unit, and that isn’t an option for everyone.
Spousal conscientiousness
Harvard Business Review1 seems to support Ms Sandberg’s adjusted position, and that it cuts both ways. Regardless of gender, those who enjoy the support of a conscientious spouse earn higher incomes, are more likely to get promoted and are more likely to be satisfied at work.
From our experience, we find that a lot of assumptions undermine our contribution to our business – mine perhaps in sales, marketing, property management and that equally undermines James’ contribution as an engaged and connected dad mealtimes, bath times, laundry, pigtails.
“Comparison is the thief of joy” – Theodore Roosevelt
Based on the comments above with regard to spousal conscientiousness and the raw nature of GCI, we want to talk about one other factor that is left out of the conversation: women are diverse and have different lots in life.
Some women are parents, and this experience alters significantly as children grow up and their needs change.
Some women have more social support than others; some are employees and others employers; some are affluent with education and orthodontics while others are migrants, climbing to ascendency through the grind of small business.
With GCI being blind to all of that complexity, what is the benefit of carving out women to compete against women in women-only GCI rankings?
Adding GCI as another unique competitive metric for women to compete against each other (versus against their peers generally) is unnecessary because commission for salespeople is the fairest possible system. Why carve out women and relegate them to a lesser league which doesn’t account for any social conditions other than gender?
Nothing here is intended to diminish the achievements of the women who have been recognised as successful women in real estate – indeed the intention is precisely the opposite.
The women who are successful ‘women’ in real estate are also successful humans of real estate and hold their own as pinnacle achievers of this industry.
Ms Sandberg later tragically lost her husband and, in the wake of his passing, she apologised for Lean In, acknowledging that the good life she had achieved had drawn on much of the conscientiousness of her spouse; she hadn’t been leaning in as much as leaning on him.
The topic of ‘women in real estate’ has become enmeshed with an intra-family exploration of parenthood, the exploration of new family roles, the exploration of a changing and volatile business climate in real estate and shifting sentiments about gender in broader society.
By adding all of this fringe to the simple concept of feminism, it has framed as a battle of the sexes that is being met by many with the profound indifference that is born from the exhaustion of trying to have it all.
Those men and women who have it all and did it all, (or forget that they didn’t), can be incredibly unhelpful in providing social metrics, parent metrics and success metrics for everyone else to follow.
These metrics fail to account for how family units work together and specialise to achieve better outcomes for every member of their family, how each family might do this differently and how a single person may be navigating this alone.
In a 21st-century context, the reality is that gender is no longer just male and female anymore. While the rainbow scopes out and becomes more vibrant, the real estate industry has other forces to battle with than the sexes; think technology, disrupters, increasing customer expectations, regulatory burdens and the rising costs of doing business.
Surely everyone has something to gain from a better understanding of how social and professional challenges can be shared. High fences have never made good neighbours.
Â
Reference:
1 https://hbr.org/2014/11/the-one-thing-about-your-spouses-personality-that-affects-your-career
Photo credit: AK Rockefeller via VisualHunt / CC BY
