In Mattel’s early years, Ruth feels that she “carries their business on her shoulders.” Do you agree with her assessment of her role? What do you think would have happened with Barbie had Ruth spent more time with her family? Is it possible to run a successful business without Ruth’s level of commitment?
By the very nature of Ruth’s personality she carried Mattel on her shoulders. She founded it with Elliot and grew it after they bought their partner out. She was the one who pounded the pavement early on to sell product and made risky decisions to get them market share so I am sure she felt that it would fail without her. I think with good people to assist her in management she would have been able to delegate more and keep up with her own family. I think she acknowledged that Jack Ryan was a good engineer but I don’t think she trusted him, maybe because of his womanizing. (If you can do that to your wife, what will you do to your business partners?) Any trust she might have had for him was eroded upon his stint on What’s My Line and subsequent media articles interviews. I think you can raise a family and still be instrumental in your company.
.
2 Likes
This is an interesting question. There’s no question in my mind that Barbie would not have been as successful if Ruth spent a lot less time working on it. This is a common thread among many executives. Historically, it was more common for men to do the work and for women to take care of the kids, especially back in the 50s. And Elliott, of course, was part of the executive team. Finding a balance between work and family must be an ongoing issue.
1 Like
Yes, I believe Ruth did carry Mattel’s success on her shoulders and while her 150% work ethic was definitely part of her DNA, the company needed someone like her to be its driving force, particularly in the early years. Surrounding oneself with smart trustworthy people alleviates some of the load and perhaps helps a little with work-life balance but still to run a company requires leadership, commitment and sacrifice (and for women, that sacrifice is still often her own self and the family).
1 Like
I understand why Ruth was so invested in her job. To her, it was probably like another child. However, she should have made sure she had time for all 3 of her children. It’s not impossible to have a successful business and still have family time. She needed to trust her coworkers more.
1 Like
I’m just going to finish the book tonight, but there is no question Barbie would have come into existence without Ruth’s determination and effort. As committed as her husband was to their business, he did not have the drive to continue the way Ruth did. However, I did worry that Ruth was not taking care of her health as she should have. Having been diagnosed with breast cancer myself recently, I know how difficult it must have been for her not to be able to go to work when she worried so much about the business, but being much older than she was and retired, I can only imagine her frustration at not being able to go back to work. As for her children, she probably should have handled their needs much differently, but there was such a driven urgency and often selfish indulgence in her need to succeed.
1 Like
I think Ruth’s personality as a go-getter and as one of the earlier career women at that time prevented her from giving anything less than her all to her work at Mattel. Plus, she was one of the founders of the company so I’m sure she was more invested in its success than any of her employees. However, I did feel bad for her children, especially Barbara that her mother wasn’t more of a presence in her life. Maybe she should have given more responsibility to her staff and other employees, but at that time she just didn’t think it was possible.
1 Like
Ruth was the driving force for Barbie. The time was right for a non-baby doll, so overtime I do think one would have been developed but it would have looked so different. It needed a woman to realize that Barbie could be a fashion doll and not have a family.
It is easy to say Ruth should have delegated, and worked less, but I don’t think that was her personality. I do wish she had a better relationship with her children and had spent more time with her family, but I don’t know if that would have been possible and still have worked at the level Ruth did. It is sometimes hard to believe what the world was like. Ruth was not even going to be let into a business meeting because it was held at a gentlemen’s club and no one thought she belonged there! Want to be there were no female bathrooms!
1 Like
Not at all–she may have been the bulldozer that pushed the team around but it was certainly a team. Of course, it is possible to run a successful business and still have quality and loving time with family–but you have to consider family a top priority–not necessarily the only top priority–but just as important as business success. You make time, if it is important enough
1 Like
I do think that Ruth was the driving force behind Barbie. She carried the weight of Mattel on her shoulders and she loved that role but she was also smart enough to know that she needed a team to make anything happen so a big part of her work was getting her team on board with the work.
@Susan_Roberts - I agree with your take - she definitely was the driving the driving force, but she also knew the value of the team.
Additionally, if Ruth spent more time with her family, Barbie probably would have still happened. But my take is Ruth was always careful to be present since not everyone saw her and accepted her as an executive and would find ways to exclude her if she wasn’t physically present - I think back to the scene in New York where they almost didn’t let her into the meeting. Because of that constant battle, it put her in a more challenging position as a leader and it doesn’t seem like she was able to find work/life balance.
1 Like
Ruth was the driving force behind Mattel. I think one has to be that dedicated and involved to create something successful. Unfortunately, that took time away from her family. If she hadn’t been that involved, Barbie would have been a very different doll (possibly failure) and Mattel would not have been as successful.
1 Like