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.
Choosing Leaders for the Wrong Reasons
Leadership, Managing ChangeOne 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.
Four Ways to Balance Motherhood with a Career in the C-Suite
Work-LifeThe debate on working mothers is usually framed in “you can’t have it all” terms and often pits working mothers against their stay-at-home counterparts. Typically, the discussion focuses on middle-class mothers in mid-level jobs. But what about balancing motherhood and work in the C-suite? Are the issues appreciably different for mothers who are top executives? Can executive moms find the right balance?
Tellingly, male CEOs are rarely asked how they manage to find the right balance between work and fatherhood. Even in 2014, women are assumed to be the primary caregiver for children, and mothers who take on demanding, high-level executive roles are often scrutinized and found wanting as either parents, leaders or both, as the controversy surrounding Marissa Mayer’s hiring at Yahoo demonstrated.
But the fact that the terms and framing of the debate are often unfair doesn’t mean there aren’t real challenges involved in striking the right balance between the role of mother and CEO. Here are a few methods women executives have used to successfully handle both roles.
1. Define your priorities – and recognize that they will change. As a top executive, you’re ultimately responsible for all aspects of company operations, and you understand the commitment it takes to successfully manage your enterprise. To handle another all-consuming role – parenthood – simultaneously means you have to set priorities and make compromises. This is true for any parent, male or female. It’s also important to acknowledge that your priorities will change over time. Parenthood is a life-changing event, and as children grow, the demands of motherhood evolve.
2. Develop a strong, dedicated team. Some CEOs find it tough to delegate important tasks, which makes it extremely difficult to achieve work-life balance. “Difficult” can quickly become “impossible” when you’re attempting to balance two extraordinarily demanding roles, chief executive and mother, without delegating key tasks. To pull it off successfully, you’ll need to surround yourself with a team you can trust to handle critical negotiations and client relationships. Give your top people a chance to shine, and mentor them to hone their leadership skills. When you have a trusted team in place, you’ll have more options when you need to prioritize your time.
Read more
Understanding Motivations of Your Own & Others in 4 Steps
Office PoliticsSometimes 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.
Read more
Voice of Experience: Dixie Johnson, Partner, King & Spalding
Voices of Experience“Every job is a stepping stone the builds your portfolio in the future,” Johnson said. “Be open to changing directions.”
Career Path in Law
In order to keep her teaching certification, Johnson was required to complete a graduate degree. “I decided to get my MBA at night while I was teaching during the day,” said Johnson. It was here that she was advised to attend law school at the urging of her Business Law professor who read her first exam and saw something special in Johnson. “This is one of those lessons in life,” explained Johnson.
“If people are paying attention and care enough to vocalize their observations, it can change somebody’s life, which is exactly what this professor did for me.”
Although Johnson was not entirely convinced that she wanted to become a lawyer, she ultimately listened to the advice of her professor, took a leave of absence from teaching, and applied to the local law school in Albuquerque, NM. Since Johnson always had an affinity for math, she had an early interest in tax law, but when the tax code changed twice while she was in law school, she reconsidered this area and began to look more closely at securities law instead. “It is a heavily regulated field where lawyers are necessary, and I found it very intriguing,” Johnson explained. “As it turned out, my professor was right. I loved law school and quickly realized that it was a very good fit for me,” said Johnson. By the end of her third year, Johnson was headed to Washington, D.C. to practice law. “I came as a first year associate and stayed for twenty-seven years,” Johnson recalled. She joined Fried Frank in 1986 in the corporate department working on corporate transactions and enforcement work.
“It took me about three years to determine which field I wanted to devote my legal career to, but I found that helping people prepare to present their case to the government was something that I enjoyed very much,” said Johnson.
In January 2014, Johnson moved to King & Spalding, where she is a partner. Despite never having worked for the government, Johnson is proud of the fact that she has built a strong reputation and emerged as a leader in securities law.
Trends in Securities Law
According to Johnson, the impact of the Jobs Act is something she is very interested in and will be following closely in the future.
“Companies are experiencing streamlined access to capital raising, and some of the pausing moments in the process are not there anymore,” explained Johnson. “The federal securities laws are not always straightforward and going on your instinct without consulting with counsel, you can’t adequately anticipate what the laws require.”
It has been fascinating to practice securities law during such a dynamic time in the financial services industry, said Johnson, who often represents large corporations. “As a financial institution, it is difficult to be under such a large amount of scrutiny, but with that said, banks have a huge responsibility,” said Johnson.
Read more
Summer Fridays!
NewsYou can catch up on this week’s content here:
Want to get these stories in your inbox? Sign up here for our weekly newsletter.
Enjoy your weekend!
In Promoting Board Diversity — Should Investment Funds Practice What They Preach?
Pipeline, Women On BoardsThe push for increased diversity on corporate boards has been going on for some time. But the push for diversity hasn’t really reached the boardrooms where those shareholder votes are cast.
Last September, The Thirty Percent Coalition, a group formed in 2011 to address issues of gender diversity in the boardroom, congratulated eight companies for adding women members to their boards and noted that overall progress continues to be slow. However, there were a couple of bright spots:
Many members of The Thirty Percent Coalition come from the institutional investing world and while its member firms lead in the area of board diversity, according to a recent study by BoardIQ, women may not be doing as well in the fund management boardroom as they are in the corporate boardroom.
BoardIQ studied fund filings on board composition of the 20 largest fund groups by assets and 125 other random boards overseeing assets ranging in size from $19 million to $193 billion. Their analysis showed, “nearly a quarter, including Pimco, DoubleLine and Fidelity Sector Funds, don’t have any, the analysis shows. Another 30% of boards have only one woman director.”
Put simply, 55% of fund boards examined have either one woman or none. In contrast, a 2013 study by 2020 Women on Boards shows that 43% of the companies in the Fortune 1000 index had one or fewer women board members. While the studies aren’t directly comparable, the twelve percentage point difference merits further study.
Is the problem a lack of qualified women candidates?
The BoardIQ study quotes Kristianne Blake, Independent Chair of the Russell Funds noting that board recruiting hasn’t changed that much over time. “I do feel historically the way board seats have been filled is the old boys’ network. It’s who you know.” At the same time, while the network expands when women are on the board, “the pool is smaller of women candidates, so boards have to make an effort to include them in the pool. You’ll have to aggressively look for women candidates.”
The number of women candidates available varies according to source. The University of Mannheim estimates that approximately 10% of equity fund managers are women. On the upper end, an estimate by the Mutual Fund Directors’ Forum says that women account for about one-third of qualified candidates.
Read more
Why Crying at Work is OK.
Office PoliticsAre 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:
Read more
Leading People Through a Crisis
Managing ChangeCaptain 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.”
Read more
Voice of Experience: Dawn Trautman, Senior Vice President, Life Insurance Division, Pacific Life
Voices of ExperienceTrautman began her career in technology at Prudential over 25 years ago. There she was fortunate to be in a program in which she rotated through various roles in the IT department early in her career. This opportunity enabled her “to learn many aspects of the business and see the business from different perspectives.” She added, “Rotating through different jobs early on taught me to ask questions, to learn critical aspects of new areas quickly, and the importance of being able to see a situation from another person’s perspective.”
After a few years, Trautman joined Accenture, leading various system implementation and strategy development projects for other insurance companies. After that, she transitioned into business roles at Pacific Life, working in various areas including technology, sales and marketing, new business operations, and underwriting.
Career Advice for Women
“Innovation happens at the intersections of different disciplines. Having an appreciation for multiple disciplines, as well as having professional contacts in different areas, expands your thinking and opens many opportunities,” said Trautman. She recommends that women be open to opportunities to “get broad experience in different aspects of business and across industries wherever possible.”
Trautman also notes that helping others develop their careers is important. “As you look back over your career, you see many places where others helped you, and it is important to pass that on by helping others get a good start and progress in their career,” Trautman added.
It is not surprising that, when asked about what she would have liked to have known at the very beginning of her career, she mentioned “how important networking and mentoring is to developing your career.”
Women in Pacific Life
With regard to the advancement of women at Pacific Life, Trautman explained that the culture at the company is equally supportive in developing and advancing women and men. Key development programs include leadership development as well as technical skill development programs, such as an actuarial rotation program.
Read more
Micro-messages: Managing Small But Powerful Communication
Office PoliticsMary 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.
Read more