By Gina Scanlon
TIME Magazine recently included the word ‘feminist’ in a poll entitled, ‘Which Word Should Be Banned in 2015?’ Managing Editor Nancy Gibbs later issued an apology for the word being added to this list after widespread controversial chatter ensued following its publication. With the steady hostility of the word ‘feminism,’ could it possibly have a correlation with the hostility in general towards women in positions of authority or status?
By Tolami Franklin
You are a manager leading a team. You arrange 1:1 meetings with each member of your team to have that conversation, typically relegated to take place once a year – the annual performance review. Its very mention can prompt anxiety for many, a response which prior experience suggests is often real and warranted. Consequently, research proves that ratings have the ability to shift our brains into fear or flight mode, a shift that encourages defensiveness and eliminates the opportunity to learn.
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
The Year End review process isn’t all shivers and shakes, it has its merits and it does serve a purpose.
The Year End process offers some organizational benefit as it provides a structure and context by which staff are measured and thus rewarded, providing a target for individuals to work towards which can have a motivational value. This value is even more evident when staff are truly bought in and have a shared understanding of the culture of the organization they are affiliated to. Weiss and Hartle in their book ‘Reengineering performance management’, describe the annual review as being built on the tenets of shared understanding as a means to increase the likelihood of achieving success at both an individual and organizational level. Similarly, in Armstrong’s Handbook of Performance Management, the annual review is defined within the context of an agreed framework of planned goals and requirements. Notably, the critical words underpinning the annual performance review are ‘agreed’ and ‘shared’, thus its philosophy is rooted on a mutuality of interest for employers and employees, all of which is good, at least in theory.
This marks the key ingredient in turning the culture of fear to a culture of opportunity.
But the bad can’t be ignored! There are more practical drawbacks which squash this theoretical understanding of the annual performance review. In a meta-analysis of performance evaluations, Kluger and Denisi in their publication ‘Feedback effectiveness: Can the 360-degree appraisal be improved?’ concluded that at least 30% of the performance reviews ended up in decreased employee performance and HR studies show that 90% of performance appraisals are painful and simply do not work.
Likewise, the ugly truth is that an employee could feel so disheartened by the annual performance review process that their confidence takes a severe hit and they choose to leave their team or worse the organization. This may mean that a team member who has shown promise by being employed in the first place is left paralyzed by an ineffective performance review, made worse by an ill-prepared manager.
So how can you get the benefits that year end reviews are supposed to render and eliminate the culture of fear associated with that conversation?
Play your role
A manager plays the starring role of the protagonist in the year end review, as they are to evaluate their team’s performance over the course of a year often on the basis of biased judgement. It can be a stressful time for managers and subordinates alike – who respectively have to make a judgement or have to be judged. A consequence of this being that a manager can delay the layers of process involved until the last minute and frame ratings on the recency of good or bad output and behaviour, rather than a holistic assessment of the full performance year. This can be detrimental to the collective success of an individual, team and even the organization.
Career conversations
Research shows that the statistical measurement and forced rating doesn’t lend itself to the collaborative nature of today’s corporate world. Managers and indeed subordinates have a personal and professional duty to ensure that the performance review is done in a way which reflects the dynamic environment they are situated. Therefore, having career conversations throughout the course of the year rather than strictly at the point of the annual performance review is in the best interest of all parties. A manager should know their team’s frustrations and career aspirations, because there is regular, transparent, two-way communication. Career conversations diffuse the responsibility of the protagonist role owned by the manager by giving each team member a platform to voice their assertions – achievements or setbacks. This empowers the employee to play a more proactive role in the build up to the annual performance review.
Continuous feedback
As a manager, regular coaching and feedback should be given to your team throughout the year so they consistently know where they stand and what is needed for improvement. Feedback can be provided at the end of a client meeting, presentation or points at which traits of positive or negative behaviour is demonstrated. It is particularly important to recognise the power of continuous feedback in eliminating the culture of fear around the annual performance review for both strong and weak performers in the team. Strong performers should be praised and challenged to continue to do better. And weaker performers should also be praised for their achievements but their development points should be addressed objectively – delivering negative feedback in third person helps!
The Year End annual review should not be seen in isolation – it simply marks the final milestone of a build-up of discussions taken place throughout the year. Understanding your role as a manager, engaging in open dialogue and providing objective feedback to your team while ensuring they buy into the shared goals of the wider organization are the key ingredients to eliminating the cold sweat brought on by that conversation.
It is possible to turn that culture of fear into a culture of opportunity!
By Josh Durso
We have never been better poised to fix the culture that exists around women in the workplace.
Men still dominate the workforce’s highest paying positions, and even for the women who manage to claim those positions, working harder, justifying your position or vying for power can be a less than appealing task even for the most ambitious.
By Nneka Orji
“Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far they can go.” T.S. Eliot
We seem to be encouraged to take risks in many aspects of life in the hope or expectation of reaping greater rewards; from high-risk, high-return financial investments to extreme sports for “the thrill”. In our careers, we are also challenged with taking risks to increase the likelihood of successful career progression. Playing it safe, we’re told, will not differentiate us from our peers.This is welcome advice for some; taking risks is second nature. However for others, risk aversion comes more naturally. The definition of risk is “the possibility that something bad or unpleasant (such as an injury or a loss) will happen.” Every time we take a risk, we open ourselves up to an increased chance of something going wrong. This is hardly an appealing prospect, so why then do some people see risk as a prerequisite for success?
Risk as a prerequisite to success
To answer this question, we only need to look at those who have been successful and how they have approached risk. From political to sporting successes, it is clear to see that risk was not just one of many factors of success, but a necessity:
“Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly.” Robert F. Kennedy
“Progress always involves risk; you can’t steal second base and keep your foot on first.” Frederick Wilcox
It seems that for people to be successful, instead of seeing risk as being vulnerable to failure, they seize risky opportunities as a means of learning not to be scared of failure. The Huffington Post’s “7 reasons why risk-taking leads to success” also include seizing unforeseen opportunities, learning career-changing lessons and standing out from the crowd as reasons to take risks. The article highlights successful women who embraced risks, including Arianna Huffington (President and Editor-in-Chief of The Huffington Post), Heather Rabbatts (first female director of The Football Association), Sandra Peterson (CEO of Bayer CorpScience). Some of these women have been interviewed by theglasshammer.com previously on the topic, with Mrs Clinton’s famous learning that she had to “Dare to compete.”
With such prominent women promoting risk taking as a prerequisite to success, it isn’t too hard to see why many now see risk as essential to career advancement. But what happens if we are risk averse by nature?
Women – are we really more risk averse?
Previously, risk was viewed as an inborn trait – remaining static regardless of experiences or environment. If you were born a risk-taker, you remained a risk-taker in all aspects of and throughout your life. However more recent studies show that this is not an accurate reflection of risk. Research, such as the paper included in the 2012 Social Psychological and Personality Science journal, show the importance of environment and “culture of honour” in influencing an individual’s appetite for risk. Other papers also show that discrimination, rejection or the presence of women can all increase the chances of throwing caution to the wind and taking risks.
According to a paper by Bernd Figner and Elke Weber, it’s not just the environment that plays a role in the way we approach risk; “risk taking is not a single trait but is a behavior influenced by characteristics of the situation (what the decision is about and to what extent it engages affect vs. deliberation), the decision maker (age and gender), and interactions between situation and decision maker.”
Does gender matter?
The concept of gender differences when it comes to risk appetite is not new. Stereotypes have led to the belief that women are less likely than their male peers to take risks. These beliefs are supported by studies such as that led by the British Psychological Society. Geoff Trickey, study author, found that women were “Cautious Carols” at work and twice as likely to be wary and prudent compared to male colleagues.
Julie A. Nelson, author of the 2012 Tufts University paper, believes that the preconception that women are more risk averse than men needs to be challenged. Dr. Susan Marchant-Haycox agrees that it’s not black and white: “it’s the nature and perception of the risk which accounts for the sex differential”. While most research supports the case that men take more financial risks, there is increasing evidence to suggest that women take more career-related risks, including career changes, in an effort to seize opportunities they feel are more commonly given to their male peers. Mara Mather and Nicole R. Lightfall also highlight the effect of stress on risk taking and the gender differences in risk appetite; men tend to take more risks and adopt the “fight-or-flight” response under stress, while women tend to focus on bonding and developing relationships.
The message here is not that one gender is better than the other in taking risks, rather there needs to be a gender balance across any risk taking or decision making panel or board. Although a study by the German Bundesbank showed that female presence increases the risk appetite of male colleagues, there is evidence to show that both risk prone and risk averse men and women can work effectively to provide a balanced view for calculated risk taking – required for organisations to succeed.
Dealing with risk
While risk taking tends to be viewed as an intellectual exercise, a recent article in The New York Times argues that the physical experience associated with risk is just as important. John Coates, who authors the article, shows that when there is continuous volatility on the trading floor, the traders’ cortisol levels increase while risk appetite decreases by up to 44%. The reverse is true – spikes in volatility result in reduced cortisol levels, increased dopamine and testosterone, and an increased risk appetite.
The characteristics of the environment on a trading floor are similar to those we see in our careers. In our information rich and constantly changing world, we need to be mindful of how we are reacting physically and how that in turn determines our approach to risk. Learning how to deal with risk is crucial to our careers and avoiding it could potentially lead to missed learning opportunities and career defining moments.
As existential philosopher and theologian Paul Tillich says; “He who risks and fails can be forgiven. He who never risks and never fails is a failure in his whole being.” We must embrace risk, but it must be done in the right environment in order to be effective.
By Louise Ogunseitan
With ethics and codes of conduct being so pivotal to the internal success of companies, industries and consumer based trust – a heavy onus is on organisations to foster a culture that nurtures and promotes adherence to them irrespective of gender. However, there has been many articles written about one gender being more ethical than the other; women over men.
A recent conversation between Shakar Vendatam and David Greene on NPR suggests that men tend to ‘have more lenient ethical standards than women’ and The Guardian goes further to explore the constructs that encourage men to bend the rules more frequently.
We have to wonder; do we run the risk of giving free license for our male counterparts to blame unethical behaviors on their gender? Likewise do we give women leverage to operate from a moral high ground as the ethical ‘light-bearers’ of society which inadvertently extends to the workplace?
The Glass Hammer explored this topic in 2013 when we looked at research out of University of California, Berkeley by Jessica A. Kennedy and Laura J. Kray which looks at how when women perceive a departure from a code of conduct, they are less likely to want to be part of it.
Why this matters for you as a leader?
In today’s current economic climate where consumer trust is at a low, establishing a code of conduct or ethical standards within an organisation couldn’t be more important for three main reasons.
• It provides a unified and universal standard on what is considered right and wrong behaviours for an organisation.
• It builds trust among colleagues within organisation.
• It promotes trust from the consumer base.
The Gender Issue
So workplace ethics are a big deal. Yet research is suggesting that men do not regard them as highly as women. Not only has research found that women are less willing to compromise ethical standards for career success, but that they are also more likely to believe that corporate ethical codes would make a positive difference. Last year, a research team at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School released a study where men and women were provided a series of fictitious job descriptions which they had to evaluate. Each job description included an ethics component and the outcome showed that women are less willing to sacrifice ethical values for money and social status and that women associate business with immorality more strongly. Could this be one of the reasons why globally, women still make up only approximately 9% of corporate board memberships?
By Cathie Ericson
Offices without borders: The Nine Ways to Overcome Team Language Barriers
Today’s professionals are accustomed to working with multi-national teams in our pervasively global workspace. While most quickly learn to navigate logistical issues, which might include teams’ diverse geographic locations and time zones, there is an element to global teams that is even trickier – forming functional teams when people speak different languages.
The impact of diverse languages on team outcomes should not be overlooked– language can form a barrier that makes it challenging to create trust and work cohesively. Today’s manager needs to know how to navigate this situation for the benefit of team success – and the company’s bottom line.
What are the barriers?
A study conducted by German researchers and reported in the Jan. 2014 issue of the Journal of International Business Studies revealed some disconcerting realties about multi-national teams. Based on 90 interviews with team members, leaders and senior managers in three automotive companies located in Germany, the authors made two important discoveries:
• Multi-national team members’ cognitive and emotional reactions to language barriers influence their perceived trustworthiness and intention to trust, which in turn affect trust formation.
• Surface-level language diversity may create perceptions of deep-level diversity.
Another study covered in Harvard Business School’s article, “Language Wars Divide Global Companies”, explored language and its connection to power dynamics on global teams. “It’s volcanic, waiting for something to ignite it, and then it explodes—and this is what we see in these global teams,” says Tsedal Neeley, an associate professor in the Organizational Behavior unit at Harvard Business School, who conducted the study Language as a Lightning Rod: Power Contests, Emotion Regulation, and Subgroup Dynamics in Global Teams.
Us vs. Them: Getting to “we”
Are we really on the same side? That’s the underlying query that most teams have, establishing territory even though they are ultimately presumably working toward the same company goal. When language presents a barrier, it can be easy to fear the worst – that others on the team are talking about you; or are less qualified; or somehow not contributing equally.
Here are nine ways that multi-national teams can help vault the language barrier to work more effectively.
Set ground rules. Meetings run smoother when you have created an expectation of what language will be spoken. Often that ends up being English as the most widely known global language. Discuss how and when side conversations should take place. “They are certainly entitled to speak their language. It’s just sometimes infuriating because they’ll just break into it in mid-meeting…,” one American explained during the Harvard Business School study. Having an expectation upfront for keeping language neutral can avoid that conflict.
Set up meetings for success. Once you’ve set guidelines for the language that will be used, remind team members to speak slowly and clearly so that everyone can understand. Making language more formal can help as well, to ensure that people avoid using slang or colloquial terms that others might not understand. Remember that often the language barrier is not just actual language, but what you mean. In a lighthearted example, Americans can get confused when they order chips at a British restaurant and get fries!
Write it out. Written tools can help aid the work – make sure that an agenda is created prior to a meeting and that someone distributes complete notes after. Using formal grammar in the agenda and notes can help promote understanding among team members who have learned “proper” language.
Don’t create rivalries. Whoever is most adept at the language chosen should be particularly deferent to everyone else. Think about what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot. (Aha! There’s an example of what not to say!)
Hold video meetings. Another study published in the Journal of Investigative Medicine found that most successful groups assembled regularly for in-person meetings, or video conferences if that’s the next best option. They found these gatherings were essential for building trust and establishing a shared vision for the project, and certainly that would be even more important for a multi-national team.
Let everyone take the lead. Just because you have chosen one language as the dominant one doesn’t mean that non-native speakers are automatically cut off from leading the team. Allow them to take control when appropriate, just as you would if they spoke the same language.
Foster respect and interest in each other’s cultures. Is one of your teams celebrating a holiday of historical or cultural significance? Take the time to wish them a happy celebration and take care to avoid scheduling calls or deadlines that fall on that day. Think how an American team would feel if a crucial deadline was scheduled for Independence Day, for example. Acknowledging their special customs can help foster a spirit of team camaraderie.
Ask for feedback. How’s it going? Find out! By encouraging teams to speak out if they feel confused or slighted, you can eliminate the rivalry and “insider discussions” that can threaten to topple a team dynamic.
Expect some roadblocks. And finally, don’t be discouraged if things don’t immediately run smoothly. Every team has its own dynamic challenges and throwing a language barrier in only serves to amplify them. But by working together for the common good of the organization, teams can realize that they can and must overcome the language issue.
Today’s workplace is becoming exponentially more global. The teams that learn to recognize the language barriers inherent in multi-national teams and deploy techniques to overcome them are the ones that will win on the global stage.
An employee leaves shortly after receiving a raise. A team exceeds an ambitious stretch goal. A top achiever’s performance slides for no apparent reason.Sometimes managers are surprised by these outcomes, which may be due to a mismatch between a manager’s beliefs about employee motivation and what actually motivates a particular employee. Complicating matters, what motivates one employee may not motivate another. Managers actually understanding motivations of their employees – not how they believe they are motivated but what actually motivated them – may lead to positive organizational outcomes.
Recently, researchers at the University of San Diego published a study in the Journal of Business Administration Research that developed and validated a psychological test to assess which motivational theories a manager believes in called the motivation beliefs inventory (MBI). The researchers explain that managers tend to hold erroneous beliefs about what motivates employees, overemphasizing certain factors, such as job security and compensation, and underemphasizing others, such as meaningful work and growth.
Using the MBI, managers’ beliefs can be assessed along four key motivation theories that have emerged since the early twentieth century: reinforcement theory (RT), expectancy-valence theory (EVT), achievement motivation theory (AMT), and self-determination theory (SDT).
Theories of Motivation
Reinforcement theory is based on using positive and negative reinforcements to incentivize employees to behave in a desired manner. In expectancy-valence theory, motivation can be determined by first examining the emotional desirability, attractiveness, and anticipated satisfaction of a particular outcome. A manager must then assess the likelihood of a particular course of action, such as assigning a particular project to an employee to bring about a desired result at a given time in the future.
Achievement motivation theory (AMT) purports that meeting three separate psychological needs motivate an individual: achievement, affiliation, and power. It is comprised of:
(1) socialized needs for achievement, affiliation, and power;
(2) striving to achieve something novel or record-breaking;
(3) challenge level of a goal;
(4) competing to win.
Finally, self-determination theory (SDT) posits, “individuals are naturally inclined to engage in and increase competence within their environments.” SDT suggests that the most important factor in motivating individuals is to create a positive environment that allows autonomy. In contrast to Reinforcement Theory, employees under SDT will be most successful and satisfied with their work in situations that are free of incentives and punishments.
The Three M’s
Professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter of Harvard Business School discusses similar origins to motivation as the motivation beliefs inventory. She believes that mastery, membership, and meaning are the three “M”s that motivate employees. Kanter’s view intersects most with achievement motivation theory, both on mastery (achievement) and membership (affiliation). When discussing mastery, she advocates enabling people to develop deep skills and shape their future through stretch goals. In fact, behavioral economist Dan Ariely asserts that the more difficult the challenge the prouder a person feels of their achievement. This also aligns with achievement motivation theory in that the importance of the achievement is further magnified for the most challenging goals.
Kanter’s second “M,” membership, also aligns with the affiliation component of achievement motivation theory. The traditional view of affiliation focuses on pleasing others and gaining their approval. However, Kanter’s view of this sense of belonging is different. She believes that honoring individuality within the work community provides deeper connections than what she calls “superficial conformity.”
For Kanter’s third component she focuses on meaning rather than power, as in achievement motivation theory. However, these two concepts have more in common than initially meets the eye. Employees find their work meaningful when they understand the larger purpose of their daily tasks. As a manager, explaining the positive impact that an employee’s work has on the world is important. While in some industries and functions this may be more challenging than in others, an adaptation of this would be to show the positive impact that the employee’s function has on the organization itself.
By Louise Ogunseitan
Are you familiar with the saying ‘Big girls don’t cry?’ Well, according to recent research on emotion in the workplace by Anne Kreamer, author of the 2011 book, It’s Always Personal: Emotion in the workplace, this couldn’t be further from the truth. The dominant perception that crying at work is detrimental to one’s career is today being challenged by thought leaders around the world.
From the biological perspective, women are more susceptible to crying due to the prolactin hormone (the hormone that controls crying) being six times more present in our pituitary gland than men. Subsequently, crying is broadly defined as a “feminine” activity. If there is a biological argument for women showing more emotion than men, then shouldn’t this be embraced in the workplace and play a part in gender diversity discussions of a male-dominated corporate world?
In a study taken from Anne Kreamer’s book, she found that 41 percent of women and 9 percent of men reported that they had cried at work during the previous year and that it had no impact on their success. Is emotion, and indeed crying, part of a new workplace culture, making it acceptable and actually OK?
According to Kreamer, the fiction of the workplace being only about return on investment is now but a myth. Likewise, Sheryl Sandberg, Technology executive and Facebook COO, who has confessed to crying at work, said in an interview with Mint, an Indian business daily, that there is nothing to fear in crying at the office as it can actually promote close bonds and help build relationships.
We must remember that emotion is a natural function of the body designed to help us get through physical and cognitive dangers. Therefore, emotions don’t cease to exist once we hit the office floor.
Understanding Emotion
The main reason many women fear showing emotion at work is because of the misconception that crying signifies weakness, instability and an inability to lead. In fact, crying at work is usually a manifestation of inner frustrations that have been suppressed due to workplace pressures. Peggy Drexler, Assistant professor of Psychology at Cornell University, writes in her article, “The Dos and Don’ts of Crying at Work,” that crying at work can be a powerful tool if employees learn to recognise that most emotion at work stems from frustration, and not sadness. On the other hand, crying is proven to reduce anxiety and stress and improve productivity, showing the human side of leadership.
“There is no tissue ceiling,” according to Kreamer, she goes on to add, “If you cry, you are not management material that is not true. The occasional display of empathy and emotion, not pushed under the carpet, can be healthy.”
Essentially, conveying emotion at the right time in the workplace can help to open up dialogue and bring issues to the surface. When co-workers gather to support a colleague, it can foster a working culture and environment where colleagues feel they are truly part of a team.
So, when then is it OK to cry?
Methods for managing emotions at work
The key differentiating factor between crying at work being acceptable or not rests in the word genuine. An outward display of emotion at work must be authentic because anything other than this will be considered manipulative, such as crying after receiving constructive criticism from a boss. In addition, crying in large groups or in front of clients can also create discomfort and awkwardness and is considered inappropriate as part of the executive-client relationship.
In order to avoid scenarios such as these, below are three useful methods for managing emotion at work:
A slight raising of the eyebrows expressing doubt, a subtle gesture which others may not necessarily have noticed but you have, and you start to doubt your ability to contribute to group discussions effectively. It happens again and again, eroding your self-esteem and increasing the feeling of alienation: Micro-messages.
Mary Rowe first wrote about this in 1972, defining such gestures that highlight differences between individuals as micro-inequities: “apparently small events which are often ephemeral and hard-to-prove, events which are covert, often unintentional, frequently unrecognized by the perpetrator, which occur wherever people are perceived to be ‘different.’” What Rowe found was that these “small events” – which are not necessarily intentional and include inattentiveness, exclusionary comments and posture – contribute to segregation in institutions such as universities and corporate organisations. The gestures are a powerful form of communication, which can have either a positive or negative impact on the recipients of the message. Based on research conducted in the 1980s and 1990s by Sandler and Hall across universities, the groups most vulnerable to the negative effects of micro-messages and a “chilly campus” are ethnic minorities and women. “In fact, subtle and/or inadvertent incidents can sometimes do the most damage because they often occur without the full awareness of those involved.”
You might think that these references are fairly outdated, and you might also assume that we have made some progress in addressing the inequities associated with micro-messages. This would be true to an extent, but according to a recent article on Psychology Today micro-inequities still exist in today’s workplaces. Checking emails or texting during face to face conversations, consistently ignoring emails with no valid reason, making jokes aimed at certain minority groups – these are the more explicit forms of micro-inequities which exist today and should have been the easiest to address. Sheryl Sandberg’s 2013 HBR interview highlighted the more implicit and damaging forms of micro-messaging: taking more questions from men than women and interrupting women more often than men. Sandler and Hall also found that expressing surprise and/or doubt about a female colleague’s career aspirations, a subtle micro-message, contributed to this downsizing of goals.
To develop an approach to managing our micro-messages, we need to have an understanding of how we develop them in the first place. NAPE (National Alliance of Partnership Equity) developed the Culture Wheel, which effectively demonstrates how cultural stereotypes lead to biases, which manifest themselves in micro-messages, which in turn lead to an accumulation of disadvantages, then self-efficacy, and finally are exhibited in behaviour.
Trying to address explicit biases at work is challenging enough. How do we then go about addressing small manifestations of bias that are developed before our careers and are often so small it is a challenge to identify?
Acknowledgment is Critical
Encouraging behaviours at work that avoid open discussion or acknowledgment of differences only feeds micro-inequities. To better manage the micro-messages we exhibit at work, we all need to appreciate that we work in diverse organisations and work to address any prejudices we may have about gender (and any other form of diversity). Acknowledgment is the first step on this journey.
Deloitte, featured on the 2009 Working Mother’s “Best Companies for Multicultural Women” list, developed a programme that encourages employees to actively recognise and discuss biases, the root to micro-messages. One such programme requires participants to write life stories for each of the 30 individuals presented to them, based on photographs alone. Allen Thomas, a Managing Partner in one of Deloitte’s US offices, told Working Mother that “people build their stories around hidden biases, and quite often the story is very wrong.” By reviewing the biases reflected in the stories, employees are able to ask fundamental questions about how they perceive and react to others and address specific issues accordingly.
As more women become decision-makers and check-signers, micro-messages can have a direct impact on revenue. Nicki Gilmour, CEO of this platform shared her story. “Before I founded theglasshammer.com, I ran the US arm of a UK company. I found it interesting that when we were looking for office space the male real estate broker kept talking to my male peer who ran the sister company and a team of two, as opposed to my team of 32 that was ten times as profitable. In the end, I turned to the broker and informed him that he hadn’t looked at me or addressed me once and as the check signer I was going to find a new broker. You should have seen the look on his face!” While that was a negative experience, it motivated Nicki to start The Glass Hammer and Evolved Employer, a sister firm that also consults on such issues, bringing them to the top of the agenda.
By Hadley Catalano
In 2013, according to Celluloid Ceiling, women accounted for only 16 percent of behind-the-scenes employees on the top 250 (domestic) grossing films. Similar to financial services and technology, women in Hollywood lack the exposure and access to capital needed to finance their films.
Like other industries, organizations and individual content creators are working to combat and change the mindset of the traditional jobs assigned to filmmakers through pragmatic initiatives, mentor programs, and networking partnerships to promote, educate and empower women in film.
One of these organizations is Women In Film Los Angeles (WIF), a non-profit organization dedicated to helping women in media achieve their highest potential, who partnered with Sundance Institute to investigate the root of the film industry’s gender gap.
“For so long the parity for women in film has been flat-lined. Since 1998 there has been no growth,” WIF President, Cathy Schulman, explained. “So two and a half years ago we partnered with Sundance Institute to launch a Women Filmmakers Initiative to foster gender parity for women in all aspects of the global media profession.”
This partnership resulted in a study called Exploring the Barriers and Opportunities for Independent Women Filmmakers that examined gender differences for U.S. independent films at the Sundance Film Festival (SFF) from 2002-2012.
Schulman, who won an Academy Award as a co-producer for the 2005 film “Crash,” explained that while the study revealed a higher representation of female filmmakers in independent film as compared to studio films, further data points and qualitative interviews were needed to understand the fundamental cause behind Hollywood’s traditional economic model and power structure, leading to women’s low employment statistics.
The second step involved analyzing the progress of Sundance Institute women filmmakers as they advanced in their careers. The organizations established programming to address what challenges women faced, provide a Mentorship Program for selected writers, directors and producers, and form an Allied Organizations network to help support sustained careers in film and promote gender inclusivity.
The second part of the project referred to as Phase II continued to update and explore the barriers and opportunities facing women filmmakers. In 2013, a snapshot of the 1,163 content creators working behind the camera of 82 American films at SFF revealed that only 28.9 percent of filmmakers were female, with women most likely to hold the job of producer versus director, writer, cinematographer, or editor. Additionally, targeted interviews with female directors and producers, industry executives, and leaders in the film field suggested that the five biggest blockades that hindered women’s career development were: “gendered financial barriers, male-dominated industry networks, stereotyping on set, work and family balance, and exclusionary hiring decisions.”
Facing Filmmaking Obstacles
Gendered-financial barriers were identified as the leading obstruction (43 percent) facing independent women filmmakers. Schulman extrapolated, explaining that there was a commonality among the interviewed financial backers – a stereotyped uncertainty to allow female filmmakers fiscal control. The reasoning, she said, was based on “mythological factors” such as a woman’s emotional behavior and inability to handle the financial responsibility.
Schulman took this information directly to the source, addressing independent financiers, networks and studios with empirical evidence that women are economically capable, and to bust the “cultural dependency on mythological ideas.” However, Schulman stressed that this effort would be futile if women could not invest in their own rescue. In turn, WIF began intensive financing workshops for hand-selected groups of women to help drill down on financial issues to help women overcome these obstacles.
“Women are not used to being demanding. Young girls are taught to be philanthropic with money,” she said, noting that there is a correlation between the amount of women working in gate keeping positions and the transactional value of the film. “In these workshops, we teach women the business of transactions so that they can gain access to the limited resources, and to know how to ask for and be chosen for the allocation of funds.”
Research behind stereotyping on set revealed that a majority of internal job referrals and socialization was being typically confined within well-established male networks, and skills, jobs, and careers on set were based on society-formed gender roles.
“This is why you’ll see more women producers,” Schulman said. “Statistically it is about gender association, and women are associated with qualities that fit the description of the job, ‘problem-solvers, multi-taskers, nurturing,’ where men are associated with roles that match the director ideal, with words such as ‘strong, fierce, and boss’.”
A Call-To-Arms
Creating a dialogue around women’s films, leadership on sets, and creative contributions is a rare conversation, and pursuing traditional forms of networking has been a struggle for women in the industry. Schulman suggested that the stigma of competitiveness is hindering women from establishing the networking channels needed to retain employment numbers for fellow filmmakers.
“We have to be more supportive of each other,” said the Mandalay producer, who through WIF has established networking programs and breakfast series events. “The more women that are in gate keeping positions, the more women will get jobs on sets.”
An Independent Woman
Documentary film director, Cynthia Wade, has first-hand experience with both the struggles and empowerment of working in independent film. She has faced monetary blockades and gender stereotyping, but she has also contributed and networked to gain the employment of majority woman crews, and has encouraged and supported female moviemakers.
Wade currently represents a thriving statistic in the growth of women storytellers, as she is one of an increasing number of female documentary filmmakers. In her short film, “Selfie,” for Dove’s #BeautyIs campaign, Wade redefines the image of beauty, one of the many motion picture examples of the way she’s changing the content and nature of independent films.
“As a female documentary filmmaker, I present women’s issues, and because of the sensitive nature of the films I pursue, it caters to working with female dominated crews,” said Wade, whose “Selfie” film employed about 75 percent women behind the camera, and quickly went viral. “But, all the guys on my crew are ‘honorary women,’ they are sensitive, communicative, and attentive to women’s stories and perspectives.”
Wade, who won the 2008 Academy Award for her short film “Freeheld,” explained gender bias is still a controlling factor for women crewmembers.
“I was trained at Stanford in cinematography and became a strong handheld documentary cameraperson. I worked for all the broadcast outlets. When I was being considered for a job that required travel, I was almost always asked who was taking care of my children at home. When my husband traveled, a prospective employer never asked him who was taking care of the children,” said Wade, who feels compelled to support her fellow female co-workers.
She continued, “I’m more likely to hire women, accept female interns, and share war stories. I feel an obligation, an investment in our young generation. I say things to these women that I wish someone had told me at 23.”
Access and Funding
However, Wade is constantly working to overcome the two biggest statistical obstacles in show business: access to the right people and access to funding. She is continuously networking. As a result of a screening of her Oscar-nominated film, “Mondays at Racine,” at a Financial Women’s Association event, Wade was introduced to well-networked women and through them pursued new contacts.
Wade’s experience is a prime example of how networking with the right people can be a useful career advancement tool regardless of your industry. Furthermore, it supports a model of cross-industry networking in order to bring women with different backgrounds together to share ideas, experiences, advice and support for each other’s endeavors.
“It was a detective game. I’d always ask people who they knew whom I might like to know, and who might like to know me,” Wade said, explaining that these efforts, through several generations of networking, allowed her to connect with Michael Crook, a leading female photographer. She subsequently hired Crook to appear in “Selfie” and now considers the photographer a valuable asset to her growing women’s network.
While “Selfie” was corporately sponsored, the majority of Wade’s additional free time is spent fundraising, applying for grants, and pushing for advancement.
“I’m fighting to move my career forward. I’m pushing commercial work, fiction work. I’m teaching master’s classes at universities. I am a keynote speaker at corporate events, where I speak about women’s stories and perspectives. We’re still not at a place in our society where people don’t stop and look twice at a woman director,” said the wife and mother of two. “I wish that every decision I made about a film wasn’t entirely based on whether or not I can find funding, or if my backers will find this topic important enough to fund.”
While stagnant employment numbers and stereotypical disparities are still preventing women from finding equality in the film industry, small initiative-based interventions and cultural shifts are starting to break through gender barriers. Inspirational documentary filmmakers like Wade, dedicated organizers like Schulman, and outspoken women filmmaking initiatives are creating awareness around Hollywood’s skewed representation in front of and behind the camera.
There is equal value in women’s contributions, leadership, and vision to the film industry and women are succeeding in shaping the way movies are written, filmed, directed, and produced.