On Changes After 15 Years: Nicki Gilmour: CEO And Founder, The Glass Hammer

,

Nicki Gilmour The Glass HammerThe Glass Hammer was founded fifteen years ago (July, 2007) with the distinct intent of helping professional women – especially within financial services, law, technology, Fortune 500 – understand how to navigate their careers with the ultimate goal of advancing. The mission was to inform (provide expert career advice), empower (by bringing women together with events and networking), and inspire (by profiling women who have blazed the path and broken through the glass ceiling in some form). We sit down with Nicki Gilmour to discuss where things stand now as we celebrate this milestone of the longest running career advice publication for professional women.

Q: How have things developed since The Glass Hammer launched?

The world has changed significantly across these past fifteen years. But the pandemic has created the most seismic shift in how people work, how people want to work and how people live. Many people, women in particular, found themselves suddenly dropped into a very different reality as of March 2020 that included swapping the commute and the long office days for long days in front the computer and longer days in some cases homeschooling kids and sanitizing everything.

Perhaps one silver lining of the pandemic, if you can call it that when there was such sorrow and stress for so many, was the chance for all of us to understand that the future of work could happen more quickly than we realized was possible. We saw how we could switch to Zoom, Teams, Webex, Google Meet and other platforms to conduct conversations and share documents. And guess what? We still managed to do business – despite the constraints and challenges, both for individuals and organizations. ‘The future is now’ comes to mind as it is no longer a theory to work remotely as it pertains to equal or increased productivity.

Beyond the practical logistics of work, people also started to really look more deeply at their personal values. When your back is against the wall, it’s time to ask: what really matters here?

Q: What has changed for professional women in the past 15 years?

So much and yet nothing has changed for professional women.

I think the greatest thing that has changed is that people want to see their leaders show more empathy than before and that success and professionalism, as definitions, have become wider and more diverse.

Ambition remains a very personal trait that is present, to a lesser or greater degree in all people as they are individuals with personalities, specific belief and value sets and varying needs and experiences. Many ambitious women still envision a linear path to the top. But I believe that having been through the pandemic and the shift in many realities, people also understand more than ever that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. I can’t speak for any other human except myself, but I do see, observationally, as an executive coach and Organizational Development consultant, that generally people are tired of accepting the legacy status quo as the only way forward in terms of what dictates how we work and when we work as well as where we work.

With the ‘Great Resignation,’ some people have literally voted with their feet and walked out of very well-paid jobs including Sheryl Sandberg who left Meta recently. Sheryl, as we know, was the author of Lean In. Well, she’s decided to lean out. I think that says a lot. I believe this was an era of ‘celebritizing’ a handful of women and it continues as VC’s are still backing firms that do close to zero for women on a structural change level and continue to implicitly tell women to just network.

Certainly people, and some companies, have also finally decided to stop tolerating the same biases based on gender, but there is still a lack of transparency around pay equality. Just recently, Google has paid out $118 million in settlement to 15,000 women in a class-action lawsuit about gender pay discrimination. I would hope there comes a day when equality is built through solid processes and good human behaviors not litigation – however, as it seems law suits are still the most effective method, that comes at great cost to the women who bring them.

I definitely see a theme where things, that we didn’t contest in the past, are more explicit and more accessible to contest at least. We are asking companies to walk the talk on equality and meritocracy. That starts and ends with transparency. There still isn’t a consistent pathway to get to the mystery of what you’re being paid and why, depending on who you are from a biology or ethnicity perspective, as pay is not really assigned strictly on merit, experience or even qualifications in most companies.

I have spent the past few years contemplating whether breaking the glass ceiling is a redundant concept for younger professionals in the sense that people don’t want to be on the other side of that glass if the traits it takes to be successful there means assimilating to something that just doesn’t resonate at all. When what’s been holding everything up is the structural walls of rules that clearly don’t favor meritocracy, due to flawed cognitive and social constructs around who gets to lead, is the work that is needed to be centered differently? A new way of looking at this? I am not sure the work is as evolutionary in the linear sense that we all once believed it was.

Q: Say more about how you are approaching the big questions, now.

I think futurism is key now in terms of understanding what can be, as well as what has been, or what is. I think that it’s a time of considering a deeper structural review instead of incremental bricks on the old crumbling foundations. Saying that, there are 41 female CEOs in the Fortune 500 right now, or 8.2 percent, which is a record high. I do not want to dismiss the fact that incremental change is happening, but it isn’t enough in terms of impact for anyone to truly celebrate progress with any sincerity, as if this was a product it would be shelved due to slow adoption in the marketplace. The big question is, are we happy with very gradual, incremental change? And how long will it take for equality to happen? Especially when we take huge hits like the overturning of Roe v. Wade, Title IX and other various cultural backslides that hamper women from an equal existence generally, as well as specifically.

Academically, this is going back to Virginia Schein’s (et al) “Think Manager – Think Male,” which began over 40 years ago. Without knowing the human involved, people in aggregate still vote for the straight male manager as the most leader-like with real traits like productivity, competence and assertiveness. Conversely, they continually mark in the traits survey that women are less competent, productive, and assertive even though there is not a specific woman being assessed, just generally as a cognitive concept of a female manager, which is very disheartening and often the respondents are also women. This remains in play in a very real way in a workplace near you! Never underestimate the power of the cultural wallpaper and what it can do in terms of unchecked internalized misogyny.

Q: Systemically, what cracks are we seeing more clearly than ever, especially now?

It goes back to promises not kept – transparency of pay, transparency of promotional track. The entire system has never been truly re-envisioned to integrate women’s lives or value our spherical lives as a whole. There’s also the blunt fact that organizations still ignore life outside the skyscraper. It has been well-documented that women do the second shift at home and do something like 10 extra hours of housework and childcare relative to their male counterparts. And that’s not just something that occurs in heterosexual relationships. It also shows up in LGBTQ+ families, because someone has to pick up the slack. But systemically and culturally, it has always been a majority of women that do that, while expected to be superwoman at work. Kudos to the men who do it as they rarely get recognized and should be, also.

“There’s been various research studies on remote work showing that many working mothers find it quite beneficial to work remotely because, productivity-wise, it’s helpful to not commute a couple of hours a day. We should be moving to results-oriented work, because professionals know what they have to deliver. We no longer need to wear pinstripe suits, ride a train and be in an office 9-5. We have to get away from this model that was designed last century. LinkedIn is redefining what it means to be “professional,” and it’s no longer being a white man going to the office in a three-piece suit with a briefcase.

“The office is now in your head and on your computer, and the cries to get back to the office are not necessarily based in productivity claims. For organizations and leaders to ignore that employees are actually telling you what they want and to ignore the data around productivity is just basing in (disproportionately white and white male) preferences. Many people can’t understand why they’re at the mercy of their manager’s choice. And now people, who would otherwise continue to work remotely, are worrying about falling on the wrong side of proximity bias. Just as paternity leave and full maternity leave are still underutilized because the hidden penalties and state-by-state and company-by-company inconsistencies do not always support people to feel it’s in their best interest. Often women are torn about how much time they can take for maternity leave in the pressure of 24/7 work with many exhausted and typing emails close to the birthing event. I know I was writing emails right up until the delivery room as that was a badge of honor that I just don’t believe Gen Y and beyond buy into on any level.

Q: So what can organizations who want to lean in, and walk the talk, do right now?

Organizations have a place to play in this because within their sphere of influence, inside and outside of their ‘virtual’ four walls, they can create a microcosm of equality – and it’s not that hard to achieve. It comes from:

  • Being clear in your mission and strategy around DEI aspects, and other aspects such as social responsibility, just as you would decide what you’re going to do with your core product. It’s as simple as that.
  • Make your management practices transparent, clear and consistent – so everyone knows what they have to do, what flies and what doesn’t. Make sure there are explicit norms as opposed to implicit norms that are subjective.
  • Surface anything that is a covert process – meaning: in denial, not on the table for discussion, for whatever reason.
  • Make sure everybody knows their role, their responsibilities, what’s expected of them, what are their goals, and ensure their responsibilities are aligned with their ability to execute on them. Make sure their skills and abilities match the job requirements.
  • Remove as much organizational grind as you can: the barriers, hindrances, obstacles to doing the job the way that people see fit, the way each person sees fit as a professional.
  • Understand individual needs and values, beyond grouping people together based on social identities such as gender, nationality, sexual orientation, or otherwise.
  • Help your people understand what success looks like. Let them know what it means to be doing a good job here.
  • Make sure people know which direction the company is going, what the company values and what are overarching goals, and that can include societal topics: because social issues have never been more integrated into corporate life than they have been in the past two years. To leave things unaddressed is a recipe for disaster. Silence is complicit and colluding.
  • Finally, make sure that when you talk the talk, you walk the talk. Ensure that you are creating actions to meet your espoused values, behaviorally. This means coaching leaders of all genders and creeds to understand how to create and implement positive change for all employees to be engaged and performing in a high but healthy way.

It’s not actually impossible or unreachable – and this is the work that has to take place as opposed to telling women to lean in, keep their head down, and keep at it. Because the last fifteen years has shown us that change has been present, but slow.

Thank you all for your continued presence and readership. We wish you a safe, healthy, enjoyable summer season.

Interviewed by Aimee Hansen

*After this week, The Glass Hammer will be taking a publishing break until September. Enjoy your summer as we are walking the talk on our values and focusing on coaching leaders and developing organizations to connect to the human factor better via our sister site evolvedpeople.com. Enjoy our 8,000+ articles and we will be back in the early Fall.

/by

Truth Check-In: Is Your DEI Performative or Genuine?

,

performative DEI Too many leaders and organizations aren’t making it over the basic hurdles of credibility when it comes to employee well-being policies and DEI policies: that people believe what you say is truthful and that you’re committed to act in the ways you say.

Indeed, the Women in The Workplace 2021 report found that while 70% of companies say DEI is critical, only 25% of them are formally recognizing the work. Only 2/3 are holding senior leaders accountable, less than 1/3 hold managers accountable and even when it’s claimed leaders are held accountable, diversity goals make it into performance reviews less than half of the time.

Other research has shown that leaders are nearly twice as likely as their employees to perceive they are creating empowering and inclusive environments. And a Korn Ferry study of 24,000 leadership assessments revealed that only 5% of leaders globally would qualify as inclusive leaders. And while U.S. organizations pledged to spend up to $60 billion on racial equity initiatives, one year later only $250 million had been committed to specific initiatives.

In short: DEI words are not aligning to perceptions and in many cases, actions.

Are Organizations Being Performative or Genuine?

In a study of 7,000 people across 14 countries, Catalyst found that employees are more likely to perceive the Covid-19 and racial equity polices of their organizations in the last couple years to be merely performative.

More than 2/3 of employees feel their organization’s pandemic-related policies for care and safety were not genuine and 3/4 of employees feel their organization’s racial equity policies are not genuine. Employees from marginalized racial and ethnic groups were even less likely to view the latter as genuine (23%) than white employees (29%).

Here’s some ways organizations come across as non-genuine: talk without action, virtue signaling in social media or staff e-mails without visible follow-through, announcing plans such as training that don’t get implemented, over-claiming advances from minor policy updates, pledging funds that don’t get invested, putting new DEI positions in place without empowering these individuals with decision-making and resource, making big one-off claims while ignoring daily incidents of bias and exclusion, allowing remote work without being flexible for caretaking needs, and talking about burnout without doing anything to counter unmanageable workloads or 24/7 “on” culture.

Are companies failing to communicate or failing to convert talk into real steps of change? Based on Catalyst’s analysis, most organizational behavior around DEI is perceived as insincere – which can ultimately lead to people questioning the moral character, ethics and overall values of the organization; erode trust in leaders and the organization; and decrease team performance and productivity. Candidates also prefer to work for organizations that are perceived as having high moral character.

Is Pushing the Business Case Rationale Helping?

Meanwhile, in Harvard Business Review, Oriane Georgac and Aneeta Rattan reveal that how the majority (80%) of Fortune 500 companies explain their interest in diversity – through the business case of benefitting the bottom line – actually puts off candidates, and creates a 6% drop in feeling the commitment to diversity is genuine.

The researchers found about 80% of companies use the business case, 5% use the fariness/moral case, and 15% do not explain why they value diversity or do not list it as a value.

The business case is most off-putting to job candidates. Underrepresented participants exposed to a job posting that provided a business case explanation for valuing diversity anticipated to experience less sense of belonging (11% vs fairness explanation; 27% vs neutral message), were more concerned about being stereotyped (16% vs fairness; 27% vs neutral) and were more concerned they would be seen as interchangeable with members of their identity group (10% vs fairness; 21% vs neutral).

The researchers argue the business case backfires because it subtly positions ‘diverse’ employees as a means to an end, rather than valued in themselves as individuals. In that equation, the “benefits” that diversity provides – different skills, perspectives, experiences, working styles – could make candidates feel they will be depersonalized and stereotyped, as opposed to seen for who they are.

The researchers found the fairness case (which sees diversity as its own end) made people feel more positive about organizations than the business case, halving the negative impact. But the best approach was to express diversity was a value without explaining the why: “If you don’t need an explanation for the presence of well-represented groups in the workplace beyond their expertise, then you don’t need a justification for the presence of underrepresented groups either.”

The researchers argue that when something is truly a core value (such as innovation or integrity), you don’t try to convince others why. Why an organization should value integrity, for example, is not up for discussion. So why does diversity require a justification, or convincing?

Empathetic Leadership And Genuine Action

Going back to the Catalyst work, truly genuine policies “are aligned with the stated values of the organization, motivated by care and concern for employees, and thoughtfully implemented.”

Organizations show they are genuine by: taking a stand both externally and internally, admitting bias and being transparent (including data) about the organization’s current diversity and inclusion, providing safe spaces for employees to report feeling psychologically unsafe, taking actual steps to remove bias, empowering employees to create resource groups, taking visible steps to diversify senior leadership, being consistent in communication and actions around DEI, treating everyone with respect, celebrating cultural heritage and bringing DEI experts on board.

The employees who actually do perceive their organization’s policies as genuine (whether Covid-related or racial equity) experience many benefits: more inclusion, engagement, feelings of respect and value for their life circumstances, ability to balance life-work demands, and intention to stay with their jobs.

Further, perceiving empathy in senior leaders is a key determinant to whether policies are perceived positively and sincerely. An empathetic leader “demonstrates care, concern and understanding for employees’ life circumstances.”

When a leader authentically “gets it” from an intrinsic standpoint, they are more likely to commit: previous research by Harvard Business Review Analytics found that among companies who are “DEI Laggard,” 50% of people feel a lack of leadership commitment hinders their DEI efforts. Whereas “DEI Leader” organizations are more than twice as likely as Laggards (77% vs. 34%) to have visible executive support.

Catalyst found employees who perceive both empathetic leaders and genuine Covid policies have less burnout than others (about 30% less). Among employees of color, the combination of genuine policies and empathetic leaders increases inclusion – and there is a general halo effect on women feeling more respected, valued and engaged, too.

The Call To Interconnected Leadership

Research has shown that “the ability of a leader to be empathetic and compassionate has the greatest impact on organizational profitability and productivity.” The research from HBR Analytics indicates that DEI Leaders have two clear things in common: “a commitment from leadership and a commitment to data.” Indeed, the most important factors in creating a culture of inclusion are leadership commitment and demonstrating a visible awareness of the bias within oneself and the organization.

Empathy is a distinct component of emotional intelligence, which becomes increasingly important with seniority in leadership: at executive level, emotional intelligence accounts for 80% to 90% of the abilities that distinguish high performers. An empathetic leader can also own fallibility and personal and organizational susceptibility to systemic realities like institutional racism and sexism, and rise to that challenge.

Catalyst found that having a highly empathetic leadership (versus less empathetic leadership) makes a huge difference in an employee feeling regularly innovative at work (61% vs 13%), feeling engaged at work (76% vs 32%), feeling included (50% vs 17%), feeling able to navigate work/life demands (86% vs 60%), and having fewer thoughts about leaving.

The question is does leadership really “get it?” Do leaders see the reshaping of power structures to harness diversity and the inclusion of all employees as win-wins for themselves, others and the organization? Could we have more that do?

As previously shared, the late Bell Hooks said equity would require a revolution of self-actualization and any real movement of social justice would be based in the ethic of love, where we would recognize that oppression and exclusion cost too much to every single one of us, including those who benefit: “The moment we choose to love we begin to move against domination, against oppression. The moment we choose to love we begin to move towards freedom, to act in ways that liberate ourselves and others.”

Intrinsic motivation does not come from the societal or legal pressure to do something, the business case or even the fairness argument: it’s beyond all that. When more organizations start demonstrating they truly “get it,” we will not be wondering if it’s genuine.

By Aimee Hansen

/by