Career Tip of the Week

,
Women workingThis Week’s Tip Is…

Do you have so many meetings in your calendar that you don’t have the time to do the actual work?

In a world of constant contact of live and virtual meetings and a flurry of emails to answer, it is hard to find time to do uninterrupted work sometimes.

Schedule time in your calendar every day to not be disturbed and resist the temptation to check your email during that time. Let people such as team members or managers know that you are working on a project and will get back to them later that day. Manage expectations and stay focused on productivity in this time.

Welcome to Career Tip of the Week. In this column we aim to provide you with a useful snippet of advice to carry with you all week as you navigate the day to day path in your career.

By Nicki Gilmour, Executive Coach and Organizational Psychologist

Contact nicki@theglasshammer.com if you would like to hire an executive coach to help you navigate the path to optimal personal success at work.

/by

Why Real Progress Doesn’t Have a Face

,

woman typing on a laptopWhen it comes to women in top executive positions, nothing causes more upheaval than the threat of quotas that could push more women in. But the real threat is the quota that is already in place and not talked about – the quota that allows one woman in but is locking women in general out.

A new study by Cristian Dezső from the Robert H. Smith School of Business and two co-authors David Gaddis Ross and Jose Uribe from Columbia Business School found evidence of a hidden quota at work at the top inside of companies:

If a woman holds one of the top five executive positions at a company, the chances of a second woman joining the top executive ranks falls by 51%.

The culprit behind this hidden quota? The study, to be published in the Strategic Management Journal, could not discern whether this was conscious discrimination or unconscious bias at play. What’s clear however, is the outcome.

Lone Woman Up a Ladder

The researchers looked at the top five executive roles by compensation across 1,500 S&P firms over twenty years from 1991 to 2011, where top management positions held by women rose from 1.6% in 1992 to 5.8% in 2000 to a slower yet incline of 8.7% in 2011.

The authors found that when one woman had been promoted to the top executive ranks, she was not a key opening up executive offices for more women but more like a lock on the door.

The report states that “women in top management face an implicit quota, whereby a firm’s leadership makes an effort to have a small number of women on the top management team but makes less effort to have, or even resists having, larger numbers of women.”

The study conducted a simulated distribution analysis and compared it to actual distribution of top company executives. If one female executive opened the path for more, there would be lots of clustering. If she had no impact on other female appointments, there would be random distribution. Nope, neither were true.

What the researchers found was a “negative spillover” – the actual distribution of female top executives was isolated, repelling one another. In other words, most companies had only one, resulting in a fragmented female executive population.

As co-author Ross shared with The Huffington Post, “It’s like someone really carefully went around and put one woman on one top management team, and another woman on another, and another woman on another.”

Dezső implies that one woman leads to a pat on the back and now let’s all move on. “Once they had appointed one woman, the men seem to have said, ‘We have done our job.’”

Left of Power Center

The research also implies that the quota seems to not only to limit numbers of women, but their influence – because many companies satisfy the hidden quota by promoting a woman to a professional position, such as head of human resources, rather than (or to keep them out of) a line position. 47% of first-time CEOS came from a line position in the survey, whereas only 4% came from a professional position.

The researchers noted, “The strongest spillovers are associated with professional positions, which are generally more supporting, lower in status, and less integral to a firm’s operations than line officer or CEO positions. We argue that a firm’s managers have greater latitude to use professional positions to satisfy an implicit quota on women in top management.”

Lower Return on Gender Equality Investment?

The study found that efforts to promote women into executive roles after one woman was in place become lower or even in opposition. Getting the second women promoted into the top ranks is a far more challenging feat than the first.

Observing company dynamics, Ross told Business Insider that after one appointment, “They orient their efforts away from promoting women, perhaps to the point of resistance.”

The authors speculate that this could be down to “diminishing returns” for companies on the gender equality scoreboard. While companies gain legitimacy, media, and a representative “face” for change when one woman is hired into a top executive position – and even hold an advantage to peer companieswho have zero -the marginal “value” declines with additional hires, while the cost to the status quo becomes higher.

One woman is enough to stave off internal and external pressure for gender equality but not enough for real change. Stopping at hiring one woman into a top executive position is kind of like crossing the starting line, but then prematurely taking a break to rest securely upon your laurels.

No, It’s Not Queen Bee Syndrome

Maybe those queen bee women are keeping other women out, protecting their coveted positions of power by pushing other women down? No.

The researchers found that the lowest negative spillovers actually occurred in companies with a woman CEO – a female CEO went some way towards mitigating the implicit quota. If a woman CEO was in place, there was a greater chance of further female top executive presence.

Maybe it’s about time that we stop suspecting the lone woman on the ladder in the crowd of men as the one that’s rigging the rungs.

Protected Territory At the Top

Many studies have shown that women create a positive spill-over for each other, such as decreased discrimination and increased pay, at other management levels.

“However,” the researchers state, “we obtained qualitatively different results among top managers, perhaps because men’s willingness to work towards the betterment of women within their organizations is lower in top management, where each job is so valuable both to the individual who holds it and to the dominant male coalition inside the organization.”

At the top it would seem, male managers are protecting the most valuable turf.

We Must Disassociate “One” With Progress

Gender diversity isn’t about show. It’s about change and influence – and as long as changes are made to show gender diversity, they won’t really be made for gender diversity.

It’s well-documented that women in top management bring serious benefits to organizations. It’s well-documented that real progress happens when gender diversity goes beyond tokenism to meet a critical mass.

Whether a board member, an investor, or any champion for diversity within a company, Dezső advises that when you see one woman at the top, it’s best to “keep up the pressure or even apply more pressure” to avoid a plateau.

Today women in top executive positions remain an isolated and fragmented minority. One women among top executives is not a sign of real progress at a systemic level. She’s a sign of more work to be done, and if not recognized as such, a decoy for the changes that aren’t being made.

Real progress doesn’t have a face. It has so many that no one person becomes exemplary of it.

By Aimee Hansen

/by

What MORE Can I Say? Persuasion Tactics for the Workplace

,

businesswomen-meetingGuest Contribution by Dianna Booher

People resist being persuaded. They fast-forward through commercials. They say, “No, thank you; I’m just looking” when the sale associate asks if they need help to buy—even if two minutes later they ask for help.

The vast majority of people (88 percent) report that they break their New Year’s resolutions before the end of January. And those resolutions are changes that people themselves decide to make––to get physically fit, get out of debt, get organized.

Clearly, your clients and coworkers are wary of spin. So when you MUST break through that protective barrier to persuade someone to change their mind or behavior, you have to communicate with intention.

My book What MORE Can I Say? Why Communication Fails and What to Do About It outlines nine laws to move people to action. The law of “Specificity Versus Generalization” is foundational when it comes to persuasion.

Be Concrete

Your clients, your staff, and your peers consider random communication coming to them an intrusion. Daily messages on social media, network news, and email blasts by their very nature have to be generic. Result: People skim, scan, or tune out altogether.

Both of the following comments have one thing in common: They are used in multiple scenarios––with varied meanings.

“It’s our policy. That’s the best I can do.” In the midst of supplier negotiations, this ultimatum typically brings the situation to a halt––unless the other party really has no other options. And rarely is that the case.

“We will get back to you when we have a resolution to the problem.” When leaders toss this promise to a crowd during a crisis, they react, “We want to know now what you’re doing to find the resolution.”

Such statements anger people, cause them to dig in their heels, and stall action. For a more positive response, use concrete, straightforward language. Acknowledge specific issues or difficulties to be resolved. Explain specifically what you’re doing to investigate behind the scenes. State specific action steps you plan to take or that you want others to take.

Drop the Doublespeak

People distrust what they don’t understand. Much of what is written today in corporate America and by governmental agencies is not intended to inform people. It is written to protect the organization providing the information.

Take pharmaceutical studies for example. Strip the disclosures and doublespeak, and what they say is, “We are not sure how and why this new medicine works for some individuals. We don’t know what the implications and complications may be in the future. Take it at your own risk. We are not responsible for what may happen to you.” But if they made that statement so clearly and boldly, nobody would use the medicine without further testing.

Double-speak persists as a protective shield. But gobbledygook also limits your personal influence and power in a distinctive way: distrust.

Avoid Making the Effort Look Harder Than It Is

That’s not the same as making things look easy. Promise people that changing will be easy, and they will think you’re either a liar, incompetent, or crazy. When you’re trying to influence people to make a change, they need to consider a specific request and make the commitment. Otherwise, you’ll have a “yes” answer and a “no” on the follow-through.
But that said, some things really are easy. Why make them unnecessarily difficult simply by the way you communicate them?

Whether creating an image for your LinkedIn group, sending email, drafting a client proposal, or soliciting gifts from donors, break the action you want down into clear, doable steps. Provide the necessary details to take the action without the other person having to play detective and make unnecessary calls and send extra emails.
If it’s easy, say so. Pay attention to physical layout on the page or screen: Make things look easy:

  • Use a simple font.
  • Make subject lines useful, specific, concrete.
  • Provide informative headlines for easy scanning within a document.
  • Use lists where appropriate.
  • Emphasize details by using blank space, bolding, and color for later reference and recall.

Imagine how time-consuming and difficult the task of reading this blog would have seemed had there been no headings, no list, and only a few long paragraphs.

Persuading someone to change their mind or behavior in and of itself is difficult. To be influential, make your message relevant and your action specific.

Dianna Booher is the bestselling author of 46 books, published in 26 languages, with nearly 4 million copies sold. She works with organizational leaders to increase their effectiveness through clear communication and executive presence. He latest books include “What More Can I Say?: Why Communication Fails and What to Do About It”; “Creating Personal Presence: Look, Talk, Think, and Act Like a Leader”; and “Communicate with Confidence”. For more information, please visit www.booherresearch.com and www.whatmorecanisaythebook.com.

/by

Career Tip Of The Week

,
women salesHow much of your time should be spent managing others?

The answer to this question depends on how you are rewarded at your firm and in your role. Look back at your job description and see if what you are doing lines up with what you are supposed to be doing!

If you are tasked with an individual contributor role yet find yourself heavily involved with managing others so that you can do your job well, then it is worth examining the barriers that are stopping you from having a clear path at work to succeed. Are the barriers systemic and part of the culture of ‘how we do things around here?’

Welcome to Career Tip of the Week. In this column we aim to provide you with a useful snippet of advice to carry with you all week as you navigate the day to day path in your career.

By Nicki Gilmour, Executive Coach and Organizational Psychologist

Contact nicki@theglasshammer.com if you would like to hire an executive coach to help you navigate the path to optimal personal success at work.

/by

Why Women Can’t Stand Alone as Gender Diversity Champions

,

female leaderIt’s not just because women hold less formal power at the top (only 5% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women and 1% in finance) that they can’t shoulder gender diversity alone. Even when they arrive at executive level, disadvantages in informal power and legitimacy are at odds against women’s efficacy in gender championship.

According to qualitative research on champions of gender equality by Jennifer Anne de Vries, University of Melbourne, one thing remains unavoidable: “Executive level champions are part of the organizational gendering processes they seek to change.”

De Vries’ qualitative research on gender diversity champions in a university and a police force highlights that the champion role is intertwined with sex, gender, and (gendered) power, all at play within a (gendered) organization. Women are inherently disadvantaged as champions of gender diversity in a male-dominated culture. Even at equal rank, a male and female executive stand on a “very different launching pad for their champion behavior.”

Consider this conundrum: Is it possible that when it comes to leading corporate change initiatives correlated with strong business advantages, anything a male leader can do a female leader could do too – except lead the game change on gender diversity?

Women are Outsiders to the Culture, Insiders to the Cause

A woman that holds a position of senior power in a highly male-dominated management culture becomes a symbol of gender diversity by default. Her journey was likely different to her male counterparts. She holds the potential (and pressure) to be a role model as a woman leader within the organization.

But in the champion role (which she’s likely expected to take up), that same dynamic of being an outsider in a male-dominated management culture, but perceived as an insider to gender-equality, spells out lower informal power and lower legitimacy.

De Vries found that senior male executives expressed women can be accused of “self-serving” when championing gender diversity – “looking after the sisterhood – women looking after women.”

And research out of the University of Colorado studying 362 senior executives demonstrated that diversity efforts on behalf of women (and minority) leaders can be negatively viewed as self-serving their own social group. “Nonwhite and women leaders who engage in diversity-increasing behaviors in the highest organizational ranks are systematically penalized with lower performance ratings for doing so,” the researchers wrote.

Specifically, women, held to higher standards of warmth than men, who engage in diversity-increasing behavior “will tend to be viewed as less warm and receive lower performance ratings than their equally diversity-valuing male leader counterparts.”

In fact, diversity-valuing behavior negatively impacted evaluations only for female and minority leaders – “leaders who are thought to have the greatest potential to dismantle the glass ceiling.”

Co-author Hekman noted, “executives who are women or ethnic minorities are penalized every day for doing what everyone says they ought to be doing – helping other members of their groups fulfill their management potential. It is a revealing sign that the supposed death of longstanding biases has been greatly exaggerated.”

In regards to informal power, De Vries research also noted that women in highly masculine contexts may also not have the same security in relationships at a senior level, are likely under more scrutiny in “proving” themselves as a leader (highly engaged in “gender work” of their own), and may not be taken seriously when they “position gender equity as a strategic issue.”

In other words, while their leadership challenges the status quo, senior executive women may not be as well positioned to overtly drive a mindset change among men in the organization.

Men are Insiders to the Culture, Outsiders to the Cause

Men are in the opposite position. Being an insider to the male-dominated management culture but perceived as an outsider to the gender-equality cause, gives male champions more informal power and more legitimacy.

De Vries notes, “Men’s power to challenge the status quo derives from their membership of, and acceptance within, the male establishment.”

Men in a senior executive role don’t have to do “gender work” as leaders (they represent the default stereotype in their environment), likely have more secure relationships as part of the insider club, and are more legitimate in championing gender diversity as a strategic issue because there’s no perceived component of self-interest – although they can actually benefit from it.

The University of Colorado researchers found that when it came to senior white male executives, “valuing diversity gave a significant boost to ratings for warmth and performance” by their bosses. De Vries also found that it led to strong appreciation within the company. And Bainhas found that (mostly male) CEO led gender diversity-increasing action and behaviors converts more employees to company “promoters”.

Indeed, not all male champions are equally effective. De Vries found a male champion is powerful when he’s perceived as really choosing to practice and visibly and consistently embody the role through his actions, not just preach. And resistant, low visibility CEO male championing can actually be ultimately damaging.

Another gender advantage is that a top executive male perceived as having chosen to personally own the gender equality initiative can give it a sense of importance, gravitas, and credibility. Whereas with a female executive, expectations seem to diminish the bonus points in credibility.

Championship – Can We Get More Men to Step Up?

There may be no escaping what De Vries calls a “clearly gendered nature of leadership when championing a gender cause.”

Despite the strong business case for gender equality as a corporate initiative, senior women are too often expected to carry the torch on gender diversity (often predominantly), marginalizing the issue and absolving senior men from being highly involved despite the importance of their power and agency.

We need more men actively onboard at the top senior levels genuinely daring to challenge the system that has benefited them. Should women leaders bow out and just let men take the reins? No. Men and women have the potential to complement each other in bringing change forward. Gender equity requires bravery and business sense on behalf of both men and women in senior executive roles.

Maybe it’s time we saw that there’s more than one way for a woman to be a role model for gender diversity. And equally, it’s about time we saw more top male leaders displaying bravery, rather than delegating it to women, when it comes to leading the charge on making gender diversity change a corporate priority.

By Aimee Hansen

/by

What’s keeping white male leaders from leading Diversity & Inclusion efforts?

,
Nervous Business WomanDo you hear what I hear? The call for men, and particularly white men, to join in on gender equality and diversity efforts is not only echoing loudly, it’s piling up into a chorus.

White male leaders are being not only invited, but implored to join the case for diversity and inclusion. The predominant argument is not just that diversity advocates want white male leaders to join in, it’s that the success of diversity efforts could be greatly enhanced by their participation due to their continued formal and informal positions of power and authority within companies.

With men holding over 82% of board positions in Fortune 1000 companies, and a significant number of those men being white, their participation in Diversity & Inclusion (D&I) efforts has been proposed as “Creating a New Normal” in the Huffington Post.

So with the invitation in their hands, what keeps white male leaders holding back on their RSVP to diversity and inclusion?

With all of our editorial focus on engaging white men, we thought it useful to take a step back and remind ourselves of the barriers we must navigate in doing so.

Challenges to Engaging White Men

As Chuck Shelton, Chief Executive Officer at Greatheart Leader Labs and moderator of the recent event that theglasshammer.com held on the topic has said, “No business strategy, including D&I, will deliver optimal results when many with position power (white men, in this discussion) disconnect from the strategy.”

The landmark study to date on engaging white men in diversity & inclusion efforts remains his organization’s “White Men’s Leadership Study” which pointed out that white men are less likely to be engaged in diversity and inclusion initiatives at companies.

White male leaders hold both the purse strings when it comes to D&I programs and the social influence necessary to make these programs work. Authors Shelton and Thomas noted that white men are “a significantly underperforming asset in every company’s global D&I investment portfolio.”
The report identified many dynamics into why while male leaders remain both an underperforming – and perhaps undervalued – asset in the movement for diversity and inclusion.

Feeling Excluded

You can’t RSVP to a party you don’t feel invited to. Just a couple years ago, the biggest factor revealed in the study was that white men did not feel included in Diversity & Inclusion. Nearly 70% of white male respondents agreed with the statement, “It is still not clear diversity initiatives are meant to include white men.” 60% of women and minority leaders agreed, too.

This was not limited to a perception among white male leaders. Women and minority leaders didn’t necessarily see the value of including white men in inclusion and diversity programs. “Leaders who are not white and male may quietly doubt that white male inclusion will open doors for them,” the WLMS report said. But when Diversity & Inclusion efforts don’t actively engage white men, they are prone to exclude them.

When women and minority leaders shoulder D&I initiatives, and those initiatives are not seen as owned by all and in everybody’s interest, it creates counter-dynamics. A study published by the Academy of Management illustrated that diversity-efforts on the behalf of women and minorities can be negatively viewed as scheming and (social group) self-serving. The researchers reported, “Ethnic minority or female leaders who engage in diversity-valuing behavior are penalized with worse performance ratings than their equally diversity-valuing white or male counterparts,” which only reinforces the glass ceiling. The research also points out the paradox that for white men “valuing diversity gave a significant boost to ratings for warmth and performance.”

The authors of Gender in Organizations: Are Men Allies or Adversaries to Women’s Career Advancement write, “By excluding men from the focus and development of strategies to attentuate gender disparities, businesses are missing an opportunity to effect change.”

Being protective about diversity and inclusion doesn’t ultimately advance its interests, and engaging white men – who might not feel invited by default – cannot be a passive exercise. It must be an active effort.

Being Skeptical

Another of the biggest challenges identified was skepticism on behalf of white men on the value of diversity and inclusion programs, as well as the suspicion that some people may receive jobs or promotions that they are unqualified for through these programs. The WMLS researchers explained, “Progress is stifled by the perceived tension between the qualifications of diverse employees and the organizational commitment to diversity.”

Another form skepticism took was deflection of relevance. Some white, male respondents seemed irritated to be part of a study on race and gender, and responded with what the report authors called “deflective comments”, such as asserting the questions were unfair or that race and gender doesn’t matter these days. Shelton and Thomas wrote, “We need to recognize deflections, and respond to such viewpoints through honest, straightforward dialogue.”

While prejudice is something you can put your finger on, unconscious bias often is not. Becoming aware of the unconscious bias in each of us, and how it’s at play in the workplace, for example through stereotype threat, helps to reaffirm the importance of D&I efforts.

Also male leaders who are trailblazing in diversity and inclusion have repeatedly advised that to engage men in leadership positions with the value of D&I programs, focus on measurable results (and measuring results) of diversity efforts such as impact on the bottom line and driving innovation in the workplace.

Having Perception & Communication Gaps

A third major factor in struggling to engage white male leaders was that they already perceived themselves to be effective at diversity and inclusion…way more than their peers did.

White men were twice (45%) as likely as women and minorities (21%) to view white male leaders as effective in the areas of diversity and inclusion. The perception gap extended to white men’s effectiveness at coaching and improving the performance of diverse employees (33 points gap); building strong, diverse teams (36 points); promoting diverse talent on merit (36 points); and including diverse voices in decision making (40 points.)

While perception is subjective, statistics showing underrepresentation of diversity are not. The authors suggested that with such a disparity in perception around effectiveness, conversation requires “care and focus,” in which some conflict is to be naturally expected and handled.

“Candor among peers and co-workers is a very important element to this whole process,” said Shelton. “Real diversity and inclusion requires care and ensuring everyone feels that they are part of the effort, including white male leaders.” They noted, “Findings in this research build the case for conversations of care and candor, as we seek to engage and equip white men to integrate diversity and inclusion more effectively into their leadership work.”

Invitation & Opportunity

With the invitation to men being extended on more fronts, as far as the United Nations, perhaps exclusion is becoming less of a barrier for engaging men – perhaps now, the invitation is clear.

Speaking recently with Shelton, he shared, “We’re seeing a lot of organizations in which male leaders are up for ally development. The real measure will be when more men are actually active and accountable as allies and sponsors.”

Equally important is how we co-host the party with men. When we sit together at the table of diversity, we’ll be more likely to evoke change if all parties feel involved and invested in the process, the potential, and the outcome.

By Aimee Hansen

/by

7 Voices That Weaken Women’s Leadership

,

Barbara is in her late twenties and speaks with a relentlesslProfessional Womeny cheerful voice that can get on people’s nerves. She is always smiling, happy, and eager—and sounds as though she’s ten yours younger than she really is.

Our instructor asks her whether she used another voice during any time in her life. At first, she replies, “Oh no, this is the way I’ve always spoken.” Then upon reflection, she blurts out. “Oh my goodness—I remember now! I used to have a completely different voice when I was head of my debating society at university! . . . . It was way, way lower. People would say I was one of the best debaters they’d heard.””

“So what happened,” our instructor asked.

“Ever since I started working for my boss—six years ago when I was straight out of university—he’s asked me to smile. Every morning during those first few months I reported to him, he’d walk up to my desk and say, ‘Where’s that smile?’ Sometimes he’d say it twice or three times in one day. I guess that made my voice cheery and nice sounding.”

This story says a lot about our voice—and how it is shaped by external realities. Finding your true leadership voice often requires getting rid of vocal patterns we have acquired in our past. Do you have any of the “voices” described below that can undercut your leadership?

Our Many Voices

The little girl voice. This high-pitched, thin, and wispy tone makes the speaker sound younger and less confident than she really is. Often the little girl voice is accompanied by lifting the voice at the end of sentences as though asking a question, rather than making a statement. People won’t take you seriously if you sound 10 years old.

The cheerleader voice. This hyped up voice makes the speaker sound weak because she is trying so hard. The cheerleader pulls out all the stops, pushes her voice into the higher registers, picks up her pace, smiles a lot, and uses lots of fly-away energy. This voice lacks the gravitas and grounded commitment of a leader.

The maternal voice. This voice can be either loud and controlling or quietly domineering. A client came to us for coaching because she whispered when she spoke. She had worked as a kindergarten teacher and learned to get children’s attention with a quiet maternal voice. The problem is that people have to lean in to hear her speak, and her voice sounds manipulative to a business audience.

The helpful voice. This voice positions the speaker as a subordinate. A woman in one of our courses was the sort of person who could probably run a company. But her voice made her sound much lower in rank than she was. The helpful voice is submissive and always obliging. It turned out that she had begun her work life in a secretarial position; her voice got “stuck” in that lower role and never matured.

The girlfriend voice. This is a sweet, coy voice that may get attention in the office, but for the wrong reasons. It’s the vocal equivalent of short skirts and cleavage. It may have its side benefits, but it doesn’t work for someone who is career focused. This is not uncommon even among women who have no hidden agenda.

The nice voice. This is one of the more common voices women use because girls are raised to be “nice.” Unfortunately “nice” lacks power. In fact, being nice in the board room, conveys the impression that you are trying to make others feel good—thereby putting them in the power position and belittling your leadership.

The grateful voice. This tone can suggest that a woman feels she doesn’t deserve to be heard. One woman explained, “That gratefulness suggests we are not comfortable being at the table, and indicates we’re not as invested as other participants present.”

The manly voice. This is less common today than it once was, when women took on the male style to fit into a male-dominated work environment. This voice is low, often aggressive, and shows little or no warmth. In the movie, The Devil Wears Prada, Meryl Streep plays an executive who adopts those tones.

If you identify with one of these voices, consider whether it serves you well as a leader. These voices play to a different audience and reflect a different time or role in our lives. It’s important to leave them behind if you want to sound like a leader.

What can you replace them with? A voice that is grounded and assertive without any of the overtones mentioned above. A leader’s voice is true to the thoughts being delivered—it has no other agenda. So connect your voice to the words you are delivering. Speak with conviction and power and depth. This will make all the difference in how your audience perceives you.

Guest Contributed by Judith Humphrey

Guest advice and opinions are not necessarily those of theglasshammer.com

/by

Moving On Up

,

bottom lineSomeone once asked me if I felt I had to work harder than my male peers in order to succeed. While I won’t argue that a lot of hard work went into getting to where I am now, I attribute my success to a more strategic reason – working smarter.

Although Satya Nadella, Microsoft’s CEO, is credited with the “keep your nose to the grindstone and good things will come your way” school of thought, this skewed belief is a lot more prevalent than we would like to believe. Perhaps the most important outcome to these foot-in-mouth moments, besides sending the culprit on a heartfelt public mea culpa, is to start a conversation on the issues women still face in the workforce. Let’s face it, gender inequity is alive and well in America.

But this is a complicated issue borne from deeply ingrained biases on both sides of the table. Biases for which we are often unaware. Accepting this as a fact of life provides leverage to females who seek to move up the corporate ladder. Knowing what we are up against provides us the ability to strategize a plan. By the way, women are not immune to biases and accepting this as another fact of life provides the opportunity for us to overcome the filters within us.

For years, my career was on the fast-track. I had consistently proven my technical abilities and was convinced that my hard work would suffice in getting me noticed as I approached upper management levels. My naiveté anchored me and it was not long before I found myself on an extended professional plateau. I watched helplessly as others raced up the corporate ladder while my career played in slow motion speed. When I inquired as to the reasons for the stall, the responses were without substance. “You’re on the cusp,” was a recurring theme conjuring vivid images of a barren and abandoned promontory where I watched the action from afar and from which I was unable to escape.

I needed to do something although it was unclear as to what exactly. But what was clear was that I was awakening from a fairy tale in which the heroine gets the prize through hard work alone. I’d like to say that I had a clearly defined plan but I would be lying. Instead, it was more desperation leading to motivation. Perhaps that is exactly the recipe for success. My leadership skills were suddenly put to the test in real time and I armed myself with courage as I took action. In retrospect, my experiences can be rolled up nicely into 3 steps that ultimately led to jump start my career.

1. Believe in yourself!

If you don’t believe in yourself, you’ve already lost the battle. This will be the single most important thing that will get you through any setback and help you up when you stumble. Self-doubt reflects like a neon sign. No one will take you seriously if you lack confidence. Most importantly, remain true to yourself. Never allow anyone to push you past that imaginary line in the sand beyond which you lose sight of yourself.

2. Be bold!

Mr. Nadella is just plain wrong. His advice has never been applicable in any era. Competition is fierce. Men are constantly seeking ways to stand out from the pack. Why would things be any different for women? Get your nose out of the grindstone and take risks. Leap outside your comfort zone and ask for those challenging assignments. Better yet, demand them. Have the courage to risk failure as it will only lead to growth and that gets you further along than through inaction.

3. Be discoverable!

Make your presence known. Women feel uncomfortable in touting our accomplishments and owning our success. This is our issue and we must overcome it. We risk having others see right through us when we sit quietly in the sidelines. Leadership is all about speaking out so let’s get used to it. Yes, go ahead and sit at the table, lean in, raise your hand, and never be afraid to proclaim “Enough!”

These are exciting times where change is in the air. But it takes all of us, collectively and individually, to achieve true gender balanced leadership. So believe in yourself, be bold, be discoverable, and never give up!

Each one of us has an imaginary line in the sand that we refuse to cross and I felt that I had allowed myself to be nudged over my threshold.

It is only in hindsight that I am able to share my lessons learned.

By Rossana G. D’Antonio, PE, GE

/by

The Importance of Pro Bono

,

woman sitting at deskAfter the financial crash in 2008, many law firms were forced to downsize, combine or dissolve. Unlike after prior market constrictions, the numbers of lawyers hired by firms have not rebounded and this past year law school enrollment was the lowest it had been in 40 years. What does this mean for newly admitted attorneys and experienced attorneys? And how does pro bono fit in to the picture?

The American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct encourages all attorneys to seek to offer 50 hours of pro-bono service a year. As a result, many state bars have adopted these rules because they recognize the importance of pro bono service. Most attorneys recognize the importance of giving back particularly when many people cannot afford an attorney and often appear in court unrepresented. But beyond these altruistic and aspirational reasons, there are also unintended benefits to those who donate their time — helping others can mean helping yourself too.

A. Developing Your Skill Set

One of the most common complaints from clients about newly admitted lawyers is that they don’t graduate with a lot of practical skills. Additionally, in a constricted economy, many clients are no longer interested in footing the bill for on-the-job training. Pro bono assignments and representations can provide an excellent source of practical training for the newly minted attorney and a means of learning specific legal skills. Such cases often give new attorneys a rare opportunity to meet directly with a client. You will learn how to interview to discover what the client’s legal issues are and what the client hopes to achieve from your representation. You will also learn how to effectively communicate with the client to help them achieve those goals. You may also hone your drafting and negotiation skills. But a pro bono representation should not be undertaken lightly. In order to maximize your learning curve and ensure you can effectively represent your client, proper training in representing the pro bono client is necessary and invaluable.

Many non-profit organizations seeking pro bono volunteers offer training for volunteer attorneys. One of PLI’s very important initiatives is the offering of such pro bono training. We have collaborated with hundreds of legal aid and pro bono entities to develop a curriculum of free programs in practice areas critical to the representation of low-income clients – including housing, family law, government benefits, immigration, veterans’ issues, and more – to train legal services attorneys and attorneys in private practice to take on a pro bono representation. It’s particularly rewarding to learn from participants how valuable our programs have been for projects and roles they have taken on as a result. The best of part of providing pro bono training is knowing that we’ve given attendees the knowledge and tools to make a difference.

B. Learning About New Areas of Law

A benefit for both newly admitted attorneys and more experienced attorneys alike is the chance to explore new areas of the law. In taking on a case in an area outside of your usual practice area you can gain substantive knowledge about new areas of law – immigration, bankruptcy, wills, divorce, veterans’ rights, non-profit incorporations, criminal appeals – the possibilities and opportunities are endless. Indeed, attendees from our many programs have written to share how our program has “sparked interest in helping foster children”; will be used “in helping sick or injured children”; and was “inspiring — led me to contact Legal Aid regarding a pro bono housing case.”

Who knows — you may just discover a passion for a new area of the law that leads you to a new career. At the very least, you will have learned something new and this knowledge might benefit another client, or possibly even a friend or family member down the line.

C. Networking

Another not so obvious benefit to pro bono service is networking. Many law firm clients expect the firms they hire to engage in pro bono work. While doing pro bono work might help you stand out from the pack in the eyes of the client, it will also expand your professional universe. A likely scenario is that through the course of your training and pro bono service you will come in contact with other volunteers, individuals at the non-profits, and maybe even firm clients – and these connections will help you build and expand your professional network. Indeed, an attendee of one of our free training webcasts shared the following story with me. He was between jobs and looking to do some pro bono work. He reached out reluctantly to PLI for a scholarship, a bit torn about admitting he needed the financial help. While watching one of our webcasts, a colleague walked by, asked about the program and his experience, ended up taking him to lunch and retaining him for work. He was so thrilled with the outcome of this scholarship he wrote to thank PLI profusely.

While not everyone will gain a job from their pro bono training there are unintended professional benefits to be had through pro bono service that all attorneys should consider. And there are also the intended benefits – the joy and pride in helping someone in need who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford an attorney.

*Anita Carr Shapiro is the President of the Practising Law Institute (PLI), the premier continuing legal and professional education organization. She is PLI’s fifth President since 1933, and its first female president.

By Anita Carr Shapiro

Guest advice and opinions not necessarily those of theglasshammer.com

/by

LGBT Update: Corporate Culture and Leadership Key to supporting LGBT professionals in your team

,
By Aimee Hansen

Every June is celebrated on the diversity calendar as Pride Month in many corporations and we also like to update you on the progress being made for LGBT professionals and shine a light also on how straight allies can help advance talented individuals who may identify as LGBT in your office.

Out Now’s LGBT 2020, the world’s largest LGBT research project, puts a $9 billion a year cost on not paying attention to this issue. That’s how much the US economy could save if organizations were better at implementing diversity and inclusion policies for LGBT staff, or to make it clear, if LGBT employees felt more comfortable.

The “LGBT Diversity: Show me the business case” research measures the financial savings for companies who foster an inclusive work culture where LGBT employees are comfortable to be themselves. The research reveals that LGBT staff who are open with all co-workers about their sexuality are significantly more likely to stay in their job than those who are not out to anyone at work, creating a rewarding staff retention dividend.

Ian Johnson, Chief Executive of Out Now, says, “This report for the first time enables companies to see exactly why investing in a more equitable and supportive workplace for everyone is a sound business investment that demonstrates solid returns.”

Corporate Culture is Key

The degree to which formal corporate LGBT diversity & inclusion policies are effective may come down to how well they are truly reflected informally within the corporate culture.

The aforementioned LGBT2020 study found that among a diverse range of workers in the USA, 38% were out to everybody (and more likely to strongly disagree with leaving their job in the near future) while 35% of people were out to nobody or a few trusted people.

The researchers saw a 6% drop in those “out to all” (38% vs 44%) over the last two years, stating “This represents a significant and worrying fall, especially when LGBT workplace diversity has been placed on the agenda of an increasing number of larger US companies during this time.” They speculate this could reflect a toning down related to the saliency of marriage equality being pitched against religious beliefs. Half of those LGBT employees surveyed reported overhearing homophobic comments at work.

Being fully out correlated with a 30% productivity benefit. Among USA employees “out to all”, 67% strongly agreed they were “respected as a productive and valuable team member.” But among those “out to no one”, only 38% felt so.

When it came to feeling that coming out could impact upon future promotions in the workplace, 24% of lesbians, 30% of gay men, 40% of bisexuals, and 55% of transgender employees agreed. And while 80% of employees rated diversity policies at their next company as fairly or very important, only 45% would feel comfortable to ask about those policies in an interview. That highlights the subtle difference between corporate policies and corporate culture.

Discriminative Nuances of the Corporate Closet

The LGBT 2020 statistics echo the findings of HRC’s Cost of the Closet survey of 800 LGBT workers. This research reported an “invisible workforce” of 53% of LGBT employees “having to hide in plain sight”. The study showed that employers are losing talent and engagement due to “treatable problems with workplace environment or culture.”

The study identified overseen dynamics that contribute to social exclusion, since work culture largely consists of informal conversations and cues: “The primary influences on workplace cultures are so ubiquitous, they are almost easy to miss.”

For LGBT employees, daily non-work related conversations about weekend and dinner plans and photos on your desk create an identity-related dilemma. While “81% of non-LGBT respondents feel that LGBT people ‘should not have to hide’ who they are in the workplace,” the reality is that “less than half of non-LGBT employees would feel comfortable hearing LGBT workers talk about dating.”

So it’s no surprise that 35% of LGBT employees felt compelled to lie about their personal lives, many reporting exhaustion and distraction.

The researchers reported, “This double standard emerges in our study, where frequent personal conversations occur among coworkers, and LGBT employees are receiving the message that their contributions are not welcome, or worse, inappropriate. In fact, 70% of non-LGBT workers agree that ‘it is unprofessional’ to talk about sexual orientation or gender identity in the workplace.”

While sharing is an intrinsic part of any corporate culture, not everyone’s sharing is received equally: “When sharing the same day-to-day anecdotes with co-workers, LGBT people are seen as over-sharing, or forcing their ‘lifestyle’ upon co-workers.”

Missing Out on Networks

An Italian study found a culture of silence, “prevents LGBT employees from constructing a work identity which encompasses their sexual identity and prevents the organizations from achieving their aim of being fully inclusive workplaces.” It would appear so does a cultural of cues of subtle disapproval.

The HRC researchers point out that not being able to be open at work “can isolate a person and erode valuable rapport with co-workers, managers and would-be mentors.” Some of the top reasons for not coming out include making co-workers feel uncomfortable or losing connection with them, but when LGBT employees feel compelled to hide their lives, they are already cut off.

This matters to career development. LGBT employees risk being excluded from informal networks that can lead to career advancement, the invisible channels through which individuals build trust and rapport with colleagues and get noticed for sponsorship and advancement by senior management. This kind of social exclusion doesn’t require official discrimination, just the right amount of invisible cues and signals.

Corporate Non-Discrimination Policies Are Improving

The Corporate Equality Index compiled by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) for 2015, the national benchmarking tool on LGBT corporate policies and practices, reports that a record 366 businesses (20% increase on 2014) have earned a top score of 100 percent and distinction of “Best Places to Work for LGBT Equality.”

The criteria is based upon equal benefits for same-sex partners and spouses, ending benefits discrimination for transgender employees and dependents, firm-wide organizational competency on LGBT issues, and public commitment to the LGBT community.

This is nearly double the companies who earned that ranking three years ago in 2012 and the report notes that transgender progress is greatest – with a rising number of companies offering healthcare, transition support, and gender-identity non-discrimination.

Federal Non-Discrimination Policies Are Lacking

Chad Griffin, President of the HRC Foundation, remarks there’s still a long way to go. “Despite 66% of all Fortune 500 companies now including gender identity in the employment protections, we know that this does not always translate into everyday inclusion of the transgender community. While many companies are leading the way, our nation’s federal non-discrimination protections are lagging behind. Critical cultural shifts need to take place to foster greater inclusion.”

This is true for LGBT inclusion broadly. Sarah McBridge at the Center for American Progress, introducing her co-authored We The People report for governmental LGBT non-discrimination, illustrates the atmosphere of uncertainty for LGBT employees: “In 14 states, individuals can legally marry their same-sex partner on Sunday and then legally be fired from their jobs on Monday simply for exercising that right.”

It turns out that “out and proud” are valuable words indeed. The opposite is costly both to LGBT individuals and to organizations.

/by