By Robin Madell
One of the toughest career decisions you’ll ever make is choosing whether to stay with your current company, or pursue a new opportunity with another organization. While on some level it’s important to “go with your gut,” you don’t want to hinge your future job direction entirely on intuition.
By Michele Drayton
As the fall season begins, it’s a good time to check the progress of how countries are faring in removing the hurdles that hamper women entrepreneurs from reaching their full potential.
Look no further than the 2014 Gender-Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index (Gender-GEDI) funded by Dell. This one-of-a kind global study identified and analyzed factors that influence whether a woman’s business stays small to middling or expands into a powerhouse. That is, it becomes an integral part of a region’s economic fabric, creating well-paying jobs, sought-after products and cross-border trade opportunities.
For this second annual release of the GEDI, researchers studied 30 countries, up from last year’s 17, with respect to factors such as business climate, access to education, capital financing, and cultural attitudes toward women in leadership.
The Gender-GEDI showed that even the highest scorers could do better and like any good progress report, identifies strengths and weaknesses that government officials, policy makers and the private sector can utilize to help women entrepreneurs reach substantial scale.
The Grades
At the top of the class, based on a rating scale of 0 to 100, were the U.S. with a score of 83; Australia (80); and Sweden (73). The next highest-scoring countries, France and Germany, were tied at 67. The United Kingdom, Chile and Poland scored above 50.
Seventy-three percent or 22 of the 30 countries surveyed ranked below 50, and the lowest scorers included Uganda and Bangladesh, where women’s access to education and basic legal protections remain elusive.
Importantly, the GEDI emphasizes that even the countries ranked at the top of the scale can learn from countries with lower scores, underlining the fact that no country has arrived at the appropriate formula that multiplies high-growth, women-led businesses.
The Impact
Marsha Firestone, Ph.D., founder and president of the Women Presidents’ Organization offers evidence of the impact of such high-growth, women-led businesses. WPO members run multi-million-dollar enterprises and those attaining the highest membership-tier levels run businesses generating at least $10 million in revenues or up to $50 million in revenues.
Firestone appreciates that the Gender-GEDI study offers a framework for this level of success. She recalls a time when the phrase “women’s business” connoted very small organizations. No more. The WPO issues its own annual list of global entrepreneurial stars, the “50 Fastest-Growing Women-Owned/Led Companies,” and those winners generated $4.9 billion in combined 2013 revenues and altogether employed 22,000 people.
“This study is very important because it clearly indicates that there are women who are succeeding who are not a small business, a young business or a microbusiness,” Firestone said. “Women are starting and growing substantial companies. We are seeing very substantial businesses grow and develop — and they are making an impact on the economy.”
Overcoming Barriers
How much more of an economic impact they could make with fewer barriers concerns Geri Stengel, author of Forget the Glass Ceiling: Build Your Business Without One. Her book uses the Gender-GEDI as a foundation to study the experiences of 10 women helming thriving businesses.
By Nneka Orji
“Putting you in handcuffs”; so reads the Forbes 2010 article title about non-compete clauses in employment contracts. This negative portrayal of non-competes is not unique. A Harvard Business Review blog titled “Non-compete clauses punish the wrong party” is just as damning, and a recent poll by the Boston Globe has shown that 70% of the Massachusetts respondents want non-competes banned across the state.
What do you do when you’re feeling undervalued at work?
The boss doesn’t appreciate what I do. I am not getting paid enough. I am twice as smart as John, and he is getting better assignments.
Any of these thoughts ever go through your head? Undoubtedly, because according to the American Psychological Association, almost half of employees feel undervalued at work.
The Energy Project partnered with Harvard Business Review to find out what most influences people’s engagement and productivity at work. They learned that employees are vastly more satisfied and productive when four of their core needs are met: one of which included feeling valued and appreciated for their contribution.
In fact, they found that feeling cared for by one’s supervisor had a more significant impact on people’s sense of trust and safety than any other behavior by a leader — employees who say they have more supportive supervisors are 67 percent more engaged.
Do you need a value reboot? Here are five things that you can do to increase your value quotient.
1. Remind yourself of the good job you do. Then remind others.
You know those affirmation emails you receive from clients who say they “couldn’t have done it without you,” or from your supervisor, who mentions in a meeting what an integral asset you were in an important new business meeting? Bask in the glow, and then keep those little nuggets tucked away for when you need to shine. Start a kudos file for yourself, where you retain the positive reinforcement you’ve received from clients and colleagues. Read through it when you need a boost, and don’t forget to print them out for meetings with your boss. Routing copies of affirmative emails from clients to keep your boss in the loop lets her know that you are valued by those who matter most.
2.Toot your own horn.
Women in particular sometimes have a hard time speaking up in meetings, or correcting others who take recognition for their work. In fact a study by BYU and Princeton shows that in most of the groups they studied, the time that women spoke was less than 75 percent of the time that men spoke. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal discussed four “negative” personality traits that actually aided people in a work setting. One of them, narcissism, has been shown to be an asset in the workplace:
“For instance, people with narcissism, who want to be the center of attention, often make a good first impression on clients and bosses, says a 2014 review of more than 140 studies on people with mild, or “subclinical,” levels of dark personality traits.”
And narcissists are not shy about speaking up in meetings, pitching their ideas – or claiming credit whether they deserve it or not. By not seeking the spotlight we deserve we pay the price in terms of how others perceive us and the value we bring.
3. Assess what would make you feel valued.
It’s different things for different people so you have to determine what your currency is:
Is it a flexible work environment? One study found that more than 42 percent of working adults were willing to give up some percentage of their salary for more flexibility at work.
More support? Having an assistant to delegate tasks to can make your time at work feel more efficient and that the work you are doing is task-oriented, not just busy work.
More public acknowledgement? Donald Peterson, former chairman of Ford Motor Company, once said the most important ten minutes of his day were spent boosting the people around him. If your boss doesn’t behave the same way, let her know. A 2005 study by New York research group Catalyst found that women leaders are typically judged as more supportive and rewarding, which might be because that’s the style they themselves prefer.
More money? Feeling you are being paid adequately can make up for a host of other job issues. And companies realize that sometimes they need to offer raises more frequently. Always go into a negotiation knowing how much your position should pay, and tie your request to concrete results. If they can’t offer money, ask for perks, such as a bigger expense account, more vacation time or other non-monetary reward that is meaningful to you.
4. Set up an appointment with your supervisor to discuss changes you need to see.
The ball is in your court when it comes to letting your supervisor know what will make you feel valued. Set a meeting and come armed with background on your value to the team – concrete figures of your recent contributions. This is where you pull out that kudos files and reinforce the value that you bring to the team, both colleagues and clients. Clear proof of the contributions you make are what will make your supervisor see the business case for meeting your needs.
5. Take care of yourself.
Most full time workers spend at least a third of their life at work – so it’s surely an important part of who we are. But, we also spend 2/3 of our lives not at work. So even when you are dealing with workplace stress, or the feeling of being undervalued, don’t let that bleed into your relationships or cause you to neglect the parts of your life that can make you feel more positive.
Make sure you take regular breaks. The Energy Project/Harvard Business Review study found that employees who take a break every 90 minutes report a 46 percent higher level of health and well-being.
Spend time with family and friends. Make sure you have unplugged time every day to spend with loved ones which can help add perspective to your career.
Make plans for something to look forward to. Sometimes getting out of the office on a Monday night for a yoga class with a friend, heading out for a hike on a Saturday or a weekend getaway every other month is just what you need. Having something to anticipate can add balance to your life.
The bottom line? No professional should feel undervalued. Taking steps to remedy the issue – and reminding yourself of your own great qualities in the meantime, can make your workplace one where you get the credit you deserve.
By Cathie Ericson
By Nicholas Pummer
One of the most important decisions that any organization makes is who to name manager. However, according to a recent report by Gallup, companies are alarmingly bad at identifying managerial talent. According to the results published in the Gallup Business Journal, companies select the wrong candidate a staggering 82% of the time. Very few individuals – just 10% says Gallup’s research – possess the natural skill set necessary to become effective managers.
As if companies did not already face a difficult task in identifying the precious few with the potential to lead, the conventional selection process could be systematically overlooking female candidates based on preconceived notions about what a manager “should” look like.
A long line of research in management has identified gender role stereotyping as a major barrier for women. The association between gender role stereotypes and perceptions about requisite management characteristics could be a decisive factor in limiting the number of women in management positions.
Good managers are hard to find
The Gallup report identifies five principle characteristics that great managers display, including the following:
1. They are assertive;
2. They are motivational;
3. They create a culture of accountability;
4. They are skilled at building relationships;
5. They make decisions based on productivity, not politics.
The authors note that while many individuals display some of the above characteristics, only one in ten employees have all of the characteristics necessary to give them the potential to be great leaders within the organization. The stakes are high for companies, as great managers, says Gallup’s report, lead to a higher level of employee engagement, which ultimately results in a more successful organization.
The question remains why companies have so much trouble identifying the right candidates. Part of the problem, according to researchers, is the conventional selection process where little science is applied. Candidates are typically evaluated using a heuristic approach that considers factors such as tenure and success in a non-managerial role.
When considering candidates with similar profiles, a decision can ultimately depend on whether the candidate “looks the part.” This subjective criterion could cause more women that have the requisite skills to be overlooked.
Think manager, think male
It is well-documented that women often face an uphill battle when trying to climb the ranks within their organization. A large body of academic research confirms that one of the biggest barriers to the advancement of women in business is psychological – specifically the perception that the characteristics of a successful manager are more commonly found in men than in women.
Academics first began to consider the idea of the gender typing of managerial roles with the pioneering management studies of Virginia Schein in the 1970’s. Her research, which in the decades since has been replicated many times, demonstrated empirically that managerial positions were gender-typed as male occupations. Using a sample of male and female managers, she showed that both sexes perceived that the characteristics required of a successful manager were more commonly viewed as being held by men than women.
The obvious implication that follows this unfair perception is that the decision-makers influenced by stereotypical thinking are more likely to ‘think manager’ and consequentially ‘think male.’ The imbalance is evident in the data. Despite an increase in the percentage of women in management roles in recent years, and although they account for about 47% of the labor force, women are still underrepresented in all levels of management – most notably at the higher levels, where they hold just 22% of upper management roles.
Breaking the managerial mold
To improve upon the poor success rate in the search for managers, Gallup suggests the use of analytics to find those potential managers. According to their metrics, employees in any role have similar talents and recurring patterns of thought, feeling, and behavior that naturally equip them to excel. Using predictive analytics, they argue, can help identify them. It is possible that such an approach could lead to a less biased selection process that is free of stereotyping and could better identify the best candidate – male or female – for the job.
An equally important factor that could lead to a more balanced representation of women in the management ranks may be even more obvious. Recent research has suggested that gender typing of managerial roles was weakest in organizations that employ many female managers. Put another way, those who worked alongside female managers were less susceptible to the perception that males make better managers and also more frequently tended to think of management roles as gender-neutral.
Properly identifying leaders within an organization as well as greater inclusion in the selection process can bring tremendous benefits. More effective managers lead to more employee engagement and a healthier organization. Incorporating more female members in the highest ranks, in particular, has been demonstrated to improve overall firm performance. If managers have such a powerful impact on an organization’s success, it is in the interest of every company to invest more in uncovering talent within their ranks.
Think manager, think leader
Despite some advances, the old ‘think manager, think male’ attitude has proven very persistent. Women’s success in overcoming entry barriers suggests that the threshold requirements of education, skills, and commitment have been met, but barriers to their advancement within their organization persist.
Using modern analytics can help identify better leaders, yet is still not a solution that is widely used. Greater inclusion of female candidates can be helpful in breaking down stereotypes in the long term, but there is still a long way to go. These changes offer promise for the future, but they do little to help the many qualified female candidates that are trying to advance their careers right now.
The most important message of the Gallup research is that the managerial traits that it has identified are not by any measure male or female traits, but rather the traits of effective leaders. The best strategy for women seeking to advance is to present an image that reflects their role (or their desired role) within the organization. Focusing on crafting the five characteristics of great managers identified by Gallup for your own professional toolbox will put you ahead of the 90% of competition that are ill-suited for the job. Women that have already ascended the ranks should encourage the women that they mentor to do the same. For aspiring female managers, displaying your leadership characteristics will help your own cause, and also contribute to the erosion of old and harmful stereotypes.
By, Jessica Titlebaum
Captain Chelsea “Sully” Sullenberger spoke at the Options Industry Conference this year in Austin, Texas. As the keynote speaker, he talked about emergency landing US Airways Flight 1549 into the Hudson River and keeping safe all 255 aboard. One of the things he said about handling the crisis was that, “You can manage many things, but people deserve to be led.”
A crisis in the office may not feel much different than maneuvering a plunging plane. The same goes for any crisis; you have to look at the situation from a bird’s eye view, trust your team, confidently communicate to the parties involved and rely on the processes you already have in place to get you through, safely and successfully.
Get Out of the Way
Cynthia Zeltwanger is the Executive Director of the Paulson Institute. She currently oversees daily operations and workflows of the Institute’s staff in the United States and China.
Prior to joining the Paulson Institute, Zeltwanger spent 17 years at FIMAT USA, a subsidiary of Societe Generale. FIMAT merged with Calyon Financial in 2008 to form Newedge Group, where Zeltwanger was global chief operating officer. At FIMAT, Zeltwanger held roles such as; chief executive officer and managing director of the Americas as well as general counsel.
In 2003, while at FIMAT, the Northeast coast and Midwest parts of the United States as well as the Canadian Province of Ontario experienced a widespread power outage.
“During the blackout, we had the option to support the New York office from our Chicago office; however, the electrical back up for that particular office was also on the East Coast,” she said. “We couldn’t communicate between the offices and we knew it was only a matter of time before clients got a whiff of what was going on.”
While in New York, Zeltwanger had to trust her employees in Chicago to control the situation.
“My manager was in Chicago and I had to trust that he had it under control. I knew the New York office had a lot going on and sometimes, the best thing to do in a crisis is get out of the way.”
One of the things she learned while handling the blackout was not to micromanage, but to delegate work.
“We dispatched information and let the employees make the good decisions we knew, they knew how to make.”
First Steps and What to Avoid
While Zeltwanger believes you should delegate work in a crisis, the first thing she recommends is getting all of the facts.
“First, find out what is happening,” said Zeltwanger. “There after I would get multiple people’s opinions. Make sure you are not just listening to one person with one specific view on the matter.”
She said that it is important to move quickly when faced with a crisis, but make sure you have all of the facts.
“Also, determine how time sensitive the problem is,” said Zeltwanger. “While you should be timely in your decision making; don’t be ready, shoot, aim.”
Take enough time to figure out how you will calmly approach the crisis. Be steady and directive with the people around you.
“If you can’t provide information immediately, give them the plan from what you do know. Don’t just go into a room and avoid everyone,” she said. “People will make up stories because of the lack of information.”
Communication
Zeltwanger suggests providing enough information so people know you are working on getting the answers.
“Let people know you are aware of the problem and working to fix it,” she said.
She believes that communication is essential and if you can’t give them information, give them enough so they know what to do at that moment.
“Be honest too. Information is going to change but they won’t trust you if you have not been honest,” she said. “It’s hard to spin a story in a crisis anyway, because you don’t know what information will be coming out next.”
By Beth Senko
The recent announcement that Jill Abramson, The New York Times’s first female Executive Editor, was dismissed for “an issue with management in the newsroom” has reignited the discussion about issues faced by women at the helm. The problem for women isn’t merely getting the top job; the problem is keeping the top job.
Opinions vary on the reasons that Ms. Abramson was let go, and The Times’s leadership is facing criticism and concern from both outside and inside its ranks. Some supporters contend that Ms. Abramson was dismissed after she allegedly complained that her compensation package was less than that of her predecessor. In an article for The New Yorker, Ken Auletta wrote, “This may have fed into the management’s narrative that she was ‘pushy,’ a characterization that, for many, has an inescapably gendered aspect.”
Publicly Heralded – Publicly Forced Out
As Ms. Abramson experienced, women selected for top roles are often heralded in the media and often leave those roles just as publicly. In 2007, for example, Angela Braly was named President and CEO of Wellpoint, one of the nation’s largest health insurers. When her appointment was announced, outgoing CEO Larry Glasscock commented, “We are fortunate to have a leader of Angela’s caliber ready to assume the President and CEO position. Angela has been one of my most trusted and valued colleagues, partnering with me on literally every major strategic initiative undertaken by the company over the past two years. She brings the right combination of intellect, health policy knowledge, business experience, strategic vision and execution.” In 2010, Braly also took over as Chairman of Wellpoint after steering the company through the combined fallout of the financial crisis and the ratification of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). By 2011, Braly resigned under shareholder pressure driven by concerns over her management ability.
Aberration or Pattern?
Abramson and Braly are only two examples of women who have made it to the top role only to find them packing their bags a short time later. According to a study by Strategy& (formerly Booz & Company), women in the top job are forced out more frequently than their male counterparts. The study, now in its 14th year, looks at CEO turnover at the 2,500 largest public companies. The data show that in the over the past decade 38% of women chief executives were fired, compared with 27% of their male counterparts.
But that’s just the headline. Deeper into the study one finds that women chief executives often face additional hurdles during their tenure, which likely contribute to the higher dismissal rate.
Women CEOs are more likely to be outsiders
According to the study, 35% of women CEOs were outsiders versus 22% of men. The study doesn’t specifically address why women CEOs are more likely to be outside hires, but the data might suggest that women believe that they need to change companies to move to the CEO level and therefore are more open to outside opportunities. In the study, Gary L. Neilson, Senior Partner at Strategy& is quoted: “When boards look for new CEOs, they necessarily find a larger pool of female candidates outside their own organizations.” These hires may have full support from the Board of Directors, but they may face internal resistance from tenured executives who believe they were passed over for the top role. Neilson continued, “That women CEOs are more often outsiders may be an indication that companies have not been able to cultivate enough female executives in-house.”
By Nneka Orji
Do you dream of hitting the pause button on your career? You don’t necessarily want to hit stop but you want just enough time to pause and reflect without the day-to-day pressures of a demanding career. But how many of us are willing to take a career break and at what cost?
About 90,000 people take career breaks in the UK every year, 60% of whom are women. Recent surveys have found that while the reasons for career breaks are similar across both genders, the imbalance has a clear reflection on the current and future talent pipeline. According to a 2013 YouGov survey, 58% of women take career breaks to care for children or elderly family members and 9% use career breaks as an opportunity to travel. This contrasts with the reasons men cited; 11% opt to pause their careers for family and 29% for travel.
If more women take career breaks, is it right to assume that we look forward to them? According to the results of a recent survey by London Business School, the simple answer is no. Of the over 2000 female survey participants, 70% stated that they felt anxious about taking a career break. It turns out that the bad and the ugly aspects of career breaks can lead women to opt out altogether.
Embracing the Good
Taking a step back from our careers means that we are able to see challenges and opportunities from a different perspective, which indirectly drives innovation. The skills we develop while on career breaks – learning a new language, working in a different culture, raising another human being – all contribute to our wider personal development, making us more rounded and experienced employees when we return.
Organisations that offer career break programmes realise direct benefits, including talent retention and increased productivity. According to the Great Places to Work Institute, 34 of the “100 Best Workplaces in Europe” in 2007 offered sabbaticals. Fortune’s “100 Best Companies to Work For” in 2012 found that almost 25% of the companies offered fully paid sabbaticals. Formal career programmes, such as that recently introduced by Morgan Stanley, clearly contribute to an organisation’s attractiveness rating and companies benefit by attracting top talent.
In the US, 24% of small businesses and 14% of large businesses allowed their employees to take career breaks of 6 months or more (paid or unpaid). However, the 2014 National Study of Employers indicates that since 2008, organisations in the US have reduced the number of provisions in place for enabling extended time away from work; down from 64% to 52%.
If there are net benefits to the employee and employer, why are we seeing this downward trend?
The truth of the matter is that career breaks are still seen as “interruptions” rather than continuums of self-development. This misperception is directly shaping the global workforce.
Dealing with the Bad
McKinsey’s 2007 Women Matter report stated that today’s model “presupposes a linear career path, with no space for career breaks” when in fact 58% of the survey participants stated their careers would not be linear. Company leaders need to recognise this in the way they shape their workforce initiatives.
45% of the women reported in the survey cited “need more time for the children” as the reason for their career break. Despite wanting to return after the break, only 74% successfully got jobs and only 40% found full time work. Sylvia-Ann Hewlett and Carolyn Buck Luce found that 5% of mothers wanted to return to their previous employers, however barriers such as perception mean that they are not always successful which in turn leads to reduced retention.
Views such as that expressed by a UK politician earlier this year – that women who take time out of work to have children are “worth less” to their employers than their male colleagues – are clearly barriers for returning mothers.
Eliminating the Ugly
The ugly reality of career breaks, mainly the manifestation of “the bad”, is that there can be a direct impact on earning power and career progression.
A 2004 study found that “for each year of interruptions to employment for childcare and family care work, hourly wages decrease by 1% (again, in addition to missing out on the 3% gain for each year of full-time employment)”. Despite picking up new skills and demonstrating the ability to work with multiple demands, returning mothers are recognised as financially less valuable than their peers who have chosen not to take family-related career breaks. Another study, based on work by Waldfogel, found that the “family penalty”, a 10-15% reduction in income for women with families compared to those without (and therefore fewer “interrupted work histories”), exists for women but the opposite – a “marriage premium” – exists for men.
These consequences of career breaks have a direct impact on the talent pipeline and need to be addressed by company leaders and policy makers. While policy changes such as maternity (and more recently paternity) leave entitlement in the UK, have provided more options for returning mothers, there is much more to be done to improve gender representation at executive level.
We need a shift in attitudes towards career breaks; rather than seeing them as interruptions, they should be seen as an opportunity to shift focus and develop addition skills which build our careers.
Employers: This is not just a nice to have so don’t get left behind. The 2013 “100 Best Companies for Working Mothers” required applicants offer at least one fully paid week of leave to new mothers. In many cases it can be an enabler to a firm’s strategy; for example SAP, the global software company, launched a formal Social Sabbatical Programme in 2012 which provides employees with global opportunities but also enables SAP to meet its emerging markets strategy. Not only do such programmes provide structure, they drive a change in culture and perceptions across genders.
Employees: Some of you will see a career break as an inevitable part of the professional and personal growth, so planning ahead for the break is critical. It is important to clearly articulate the case to your employer (what skills will you be gaining during your time away), identify a mentor and also identify those who will make up part of your support network during your break.
Encouraging career breaks is a long term strategy; to think differently and become more innovative we need a change of scenery. As Albert Einstein famously stated: Insanity: doing the same thing over & over again & expecting different results.” Why then would we not encourage our people to do things differently?
By Kayla Turo
Research from Catalyst suggests that on-the-job experiences account for 70 percent of the most valuable career development tools for employees, compared to networking and mentoring (20 percent) and formal programs (10 percent. These on-the-job experiences include stretch assignments, or challenging projects in which an employee must develop new skills and improve their capabilities in order to be successful. Stretch assignments not only prepare employees for future managerial roles, they highlight high potentials and put them on the map for leadership consideration. According to the Catalyst report “Good Intentions, Imperfect Execution?”, of the high potentials they questioned, 62 percent claimed that obtaining stretch assignments was most favoring to their careers above any other factor.
However, the most interesting finding of the report is that men were more likely to land high-profile assignments than women, were staffed with three times as many employees as women, on projects with budgets twice the size of women’s project budgets.
Sponsorship is a key factor in securing stretch assignments
Lack of sponsorship is a crucial factor that could be preventing women from attaining high-profile assignments, and ultimately advancing to executive board positions, which stems from a societal fear of rumor and scandal. According to Sylvia Ann Hewett in an article published on the HBR Blog Network, “Women suffer a disproportionate amount of damage in the fallout from illicit relationships between a male boss and a female subordinate.” The fear of even be suspected of an improper relationship prevents 64 percent of executive men and 50 percent of junior females from seeking out private encounters, let alone a sponsorship relationship.
Unwillingness to ask for help could also be a culprit here. “Women fear rejection more than men in this area. They often feel it’s ‘pushy’ to ask [for help] as though they are saying I can’t do it myself,” said Judith Glaser, CEO of Benchmark Communications, Inc. and Chairman of The Creating WE Institute. Understanding that gaining sponsorship attributes to 70 percent of your overall career advancement (by opening up opportunities for on-the-job experiences) may help alleviate some uneasiness of coming off vulnerable or incompetent. “Climbing alone is not an option anymore,” reminded Glaser.
Choosing the Right Sponsor to Elevate Your Potential
When seeking out a sponsor, research is important. Identify leaders with credibility and influence, and don’t shy away from male sponsors. Present yourself as a talented, capable employee, and look for a sponsor who values the contributions you have made in your career thus far.
The best sponsor is a member of leadership who not only provides you with valuable information to increase your skills, but works as an advocate for your advancement in meetings and other situations where you are not present. According to the HBR Blog Network article “The Real Benefit of Finding a Sponsor,” a sponsor should do two or more of the following:
By Terry Selucky
“What does your husband do?”
This question may conjure the image of a group of lunching ladies, dressed in pastels, and discussing the office work of their breadwinning husbands. The assumption that the husband is the breadwinner is a common one, and it is steeped in deeply gendered stereotypes about men and women. Despite recent findings reporting that the number of male “house spouses” has doubled in the last 40-years, the stereotype persists.
Trish Walker, Senior Managing Director at Accenture, says she has fun answering the question “What does your husband do?”, which she says often comes up at cocktail parties.
Walker’s partner is a stay-at-home dad – and he is not and should not be – defined by his employment, the company he works for, or the salary he brings home.
“Our journey of having my husband stay at home while I worked has been fun, challenging, rewarding, and for the most part a great decision for our family,” Walker said. “The key is constant communication about what’s working, what’s not, how the kids are doing, and what we can adjust.”
According to the report Stay-at-Home Fathers: Definition and Characteristics Based on 34 Years of CPS Data, more men than ever before—about 550,000 in the past 10 years—are fulltime stay-at-home dads. The Pew Research Center reports that “compared with stay-at-home moms, these full-time fathers are older, less educated than their spouses, and their households have significantly lower incomes.”