The recent comments by Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella on women’s ‘superpowers’ remind me of an old workplace.At the time I was working on a dead-end project, with incredibly unchallenging work, no respect or status, and no prospects for progression or promotion. I had been moved to a new team to do a job that I was over-qualified for, that allowed me no management capability, and was extremely menial.

I had been placed in a junior role, despite having graduated 15 years previously. I was being spoon-fed and micromanaged, when I was working autonomously and managing projects in the not-so-distant past.

So I did the right thing, and spoke to my boss about my concerns. Their response? “Just keep doing your work, and it will be recognised”. Recognised for what? For being the go-to-girl for everyone’s donkey work? For being the engineer that no-one takes seriously? To be the person of whom others wonder why they even work there?

It was pretty obvious that their statement was secret code for “be a good little girl and do as you’re told”. This is exactly the message that Nadella is sending to all working women. “Don’t make a fuss. Don’t try to change things. Don’t dare challenge the status quo. Us men will take care of it.” Yeah, I’m sure they will.

And what happened to me after that? That’s a story for another post. But I refused to put up with shoddy treatment and downplaying of my skills. I took a chance and it paid off. A scary, career-altering chance, but one that I had to take to retain my integrity.



I receive updates from ASHRAE regularly, and I noticed a link to an interesting article in the New York Times – Reducing Carbon by Curbing Population. The article rightly points out that much of the conversation on Climate Change is linked to reducing emissions, but we don’t look past this to consider some of the reasons behind the emissions rates. It’s interesting that the article states that only half of the increase in food consumption is due to population growth, but the other half is related to improved diet and higher incomes. So lifestyle choices are another factor in this complicated scenario.

The article goes on to say that if the world’s population grew at a slower rate than that predicted, we could reduce carbon emissions by a substantial amount (of course, this seems to assume that we all continue to live our lives and consume resources at the same rate as today).

It’s certainly true that in the West we don’t concentrate on population growth as seriously as other social problems.  In 2006, Tony Blair stated that the UK has no policy on population.

But at what cost do we control population size?  The article mentions past population control measures that many see as inhumane, such as China’s one-child policy, and forced sterilisations in India. There are better means of achieving a stable population, such as providing improved healthcare and education, but as a nation becomes more developed, it generally consumes more resources through industrialisation and consumerism.

So how do we balance the two?  And how do we balance the myriad issues that all interconnect to form the problem of anthropogenic climate change, and all the other damage to the environment that humans are responsible for?  Maybe it’s not as simple as just turning the heating down one degree.

Click here for the original article.

I’m also hoping to attend the ASHRAE Winter Conference this year, and I’ll be blogging about my time there.  Click here for information on the programme.