By Pragati Verma
Having educated 25 of the current Fortune 500 CEOs, Harvard Business School (HBS) is a breeding ground for successful business leaders, albeit it’s so far, male alumni. Will the deep structural effort to create more gender parity at its campus, which is certainly commendable and brave, actually change how work gets done in the corporations that these students may eventually lead?
The New York Times article exploring this issue raises a very important question — “Are we trying to change the world 900 students at a time, or are we preparing students for the world in which they are about to go?” Will gender parity experiments in business schools like HBS change the balance, or rather lack of it, in every day work environments and consequently, will we see more women progress into leadership roles?
To understand the impact of HBS’s gender experiment in creating future female leaders, we obviously require time to measure the results and even then, it would be almost impossible to attribute success solely to HBS’s experiment.
Hopefully, this initiative will create a bigger pipeline of enlightened leaders of both genders. Assuming we do see more female leaders, will these new leaders do anything differently or are we going to see more of the same management style we have seen in the past?
Will Women change how work is done?
According to research conducted by David Matsa, assistant professor of finance at the Kellogg School of Management and Amalia Miller, an associate professor at the University of Virginia, female leaders may show traits that differ from male leaders, but not necessarily because of innate gender differences.
Instead of assessing the gender differences in corporate leadership on a granular level, Matsa and Miller chose to gather information on a grander scale by observing the performance of publicly listed Norwegian companies after the board quota legislation was passed in 2006, which required companies to ensure that women made up 40 percent of the board of directors within two years of the quota being adopted.
Interestingly enough, Matsa and Miller found that among the companies affected by the board quotas, there was no significant difference in the companies’ financial performance correlating with an increase in female leaders. What they did find, however, was that companies affected by the board quota retained more employees than companies not affected, resulting in higher labor costs.
According to Matsa and Miller, it is difficult to tell whether or not this means that women leaders value the relationships with their employees and their employees’ needs more than men, or if it simply reflects a gender difference in the approach toward long term business strategy. Even though the results of this one piece of research do not provide conclusive evidence that women lead differently than men, it provides some insight into the possibility that gender can influence business strategy.
However, from a pure observational viewpoint of female CEOs in the past decade, women leaders at big corporate houses seem no different from their male counterparts.
Hewlett Packard CEO Meg Whitman and Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer, for instance, took the heat for forcing work-from-home employees to join their colleagues in the office instead. Neither one of these top female leaders is showing any signs of redefining corporate principles that currently define workplace practices.
Susan Chipman, in a recent HBS discussion where James Heskett, Baker Foundation Professor, Emeritus at HBS asks, “How important is leadership gender in influencing the way We work?” provides some interesting food for thought on why the women who are making it to the top are seemingly keen to not make radical changes to how work is done
Chipman offers, “It is extremely naive to expect that stereotypical ideas about what women in general are like will have any meaning for the behavior of women in senior management positions. Women who arrive in such positions will be very atypical.”
Heskett himself opines that this could be the case and mentions how HBS alumni Sheryl Sandberg in her book does not suggest systemic change but “largely assumes that work will not be rethought. Instead, women will have to ‘lean in’ and face the long hours and judgments regarding the quantity of work as well as the quality of work they are able to do.”
Harvard professor Robin J Ely and Stanford professor Debra E Meyerson give some insight into why this reluctance to change the way we work could be occurring among business leaders.
They stated in an interview with Mallory Stark for the HBS newsletter, Working Knowledge: The Thinking That Leads, “The notion that the basic organizing principles that govern workplace practice, including many of the implicit rules for success, are closely aligned with idealized masculine interests, attributes, and life situations is a hard sell, especially to those who have become successful within this system—whether men or women, rich or poor, white or minority.”
Ely and Meyerson point out that the people who have successfully made a career in the current system could be resistant to changing it and are yet expected to be “influential change agents in the workplace” since they hold powerful positions. “Most people in organizations, including women, do not view their work practices—how work is defined and how work gets done—as having anything to do with race or gender. It’s just the way things are, like water to a fish or the air we breathe. What’s to notice? What’s to change?” they add.
What will the future hold?
Arguments that suggest that a critical mass of women in C- level positions alone will create cultural change are not true if the women themselves cannot acknowledge the inequity of the system that empowered them.
With that said, it is not mutually exclusive to lack progress and change while increasing the number of women in charge. Just don’t expect people because of their gender to automatically induce organizational change.
Behaviors from some female leaders may continue to resemble those of their male predecessors but at the very least, critical mass may reduce the stereotype of CEO’s being automatically male, white, and interestingly enough, taller than the average man.
Reinventing Your Career in Three And a Half Steps
Expert AnswersDo you ever wonder whether you should move into a different profession? Do you resist the question because you don’t know how to start answering it? Before I changed careers from litigation to academia, I spent years quashing my own doubts about whether practicing law was right for me. When lawyers struggle with this issue, they often face a flurry of internal objections. Some fear that they’ll never be able to make as much money or enjoy as much status in another field; some wonder whether they’ll be able to succeed doing something different. Most could use help thinking about transitions in a realistic and productive way.
In my experience, the most successful career reinventions happen when women strategically tap into the skills they enjoy using, not just the ones they are most praised or best paid for. In talking with over a hundred former lawyers while writing Life After Law: Finding Work You Love with the J.D. You Have, I developed a three-step process for lawyers and anyone else considering a career transition. The three basic steps are: (1) identifying favorite skills, (2) reframing those skills in terms that employers in other fields value, and (3) advocating for yourself by highlighting how your past successes have prepared you to succeed in the field you want to enter.
Read more
New Class of First Time UK Board Directors: More Diverse, Less Experienced
Managing Change, PipelineA new Korn / Ferry Institute study shows that first time board-appointees in the UK are getting younger and are more likely to be female than ever before. According to the report, 47 percent of first-time directors in the FTSE 350 last year were women. That’s a huge leap from just 2007, when a miniscule 11 percent of first-time appointees were female.
On average, last year’s class of first-time appointees was 52.6, four years younger than the average for all appointments to the FTSE 350 in the year. It’s a year younger than the 2007 class of first-time appointees.
In fact, the report authors, there’s more than demographic diversification taking place. UK director positions are also opening up to people in roles outside the traditional commercial background to people with human resources, marketing, and legal expertise. Additionally, first-time appointees were more likely to have international experience, with more than half having lived or worked abroad.
The downside to all this diversity amongst non-executive directors (NEDs), the report says, is less executive director experience.
Fresh Perspectives
The vast increase in the percentage of female first-time appointees can be attributed to the push from the public to promote more women to leadership positions. In particular, the push for more women on boards can be attributed to the Lord Davies report, published in 2008, which called for companies in the FTSE 100 to increase their proportion of women board directors to 25 percent by 2015. Groups like the 30% Club have also led the charge to increase the gender diversity on boards.
It’s likely that at least some of the other diversity factors within last year’s class of first-time board appointees were been driven by the need for companies to reach beyond their traditional circles to find women to fill these positions. Korn / Ferry indicates that the gender and age factors may be linked to some extent. But as for the other areas of diversification, it may simply be a case of the UK’s biggest companies realizing they need new views and broader areas of expertise in order to stay competitive. The report says:
Nevertheless, this diversification does come at a cost, Korn / Ferry says. The 2007 sample of first-time directors had significantly more people with executive-director experience. “In 2007, 46 percent of first-time NED appointees had executive director experience gained on a quoted company board, including 24 percent with a FTSE 350 company. This dropped to 29 percent among The Class of 2012, and only 11 percent with a FTSE 350 company.”
Read more
Congratulations! You’ve been identified as a “High Potential.” Now What?
Managing Change, Next LevelAccording to Harvard Business Review, companies identify 3-5% of their workforce as “High Potential.” If you have made that list, congratulations! You likely have outstanding technical expertise and an aptitude for strategic thinking. You probably have already delivered strong results, succeeded in various roles, and sought ways to improve processes and efficiency. Although making the list is an achievement in and of itself, it is only the first step. Now, as your journey as a “High Potential” begins, what steps should you take to position yourself for realizing that potential?
Anticipate that “soft” skills will increase in importance. A common mistake is assuming that the same skill set, approach, and behaviors that led you to be named a “High Potential” will also lead to further advancement. Your technical skill, strong work ethic, and strategic thinking will likely allow you to continue excelling in your current job, or to make lateral moves. However, additional competencies may be necessary to reach the next level – ones you may need to work on developing. For instance, as ”High Potential” candidates are considered for promotions and stretch assignments, ”soft” skills such as influencing, delegating, networking, and leadership become more important than technical expertise. According to INSEAD, these all-important shifts are “common traps” for women as they transition to senior management. To successfully make these transitions, it is essential to be self-aware and make a conscious effort to hone the new competencies that will be needed as you strive to advance in your organization.
Read more
8 Ways to Survive a Re-Org and Keep Your Career on Track
Managing ChangeHow can you make sure that new bosses or those above you in the new organization know who you are so that you receive support for promotions, even as you find yourself with a series of new bosses? Is it possible even in the midst of corporate upheaval to make yourself seem indispensable during turbulent periods, so that you will stand out companywide?
Yes, there are ways to get through a re-org with your career intact—or better yet thriving. Here are 8 ways to survive and succeed in any environment:
Read more
Voice of Experience: Elizabeth Crain, Chief Operating Officer, Moelis & Company
Voices of ExperienceWomen can have incredibly exciting and rewarding careers in financial services and investment banking if that is what they want to do. Elizabeth Crain, COO of the global independent investment bank Moelis & Company, has worked her way through the ranks of investment banking and private equity during her career.
“I have been in the industry in many capacities over the last twenty-five years and have had to make some difficult career decisions during that time,” Crain stated. “One of the most critical moments in my career was when I met Ken Moelis, who had just joined UBS to run investment banking. I pitched him on the idea of creating a business development role which he bravely agreed to.” Crain recognized that making the leap to UBS was potentially risky – she had no title, job spec nor a clear career path in this new role – but she knew it felt right, and that she could leverage her experience in banking to help run a business on the management side.
Also, having met Ken, she was impressed and remembered an important piece of advice from a colleague who told her that if you have the opportunity to work with someone like him, take it. “This was without a doubt the most critical decision of my career,” added Crain, “and it took me down a different path that has been hugely rewarding.”
Early in her career, Crain entered the Analyst training program at Merrill Lynch after graduating from Arizona State University in 1987. She completed two year junior analyst program, then went on to earn her MBA from Wharton before returning to the financial services industry.
Read more
Intrepid Woman: Lois Braverman, President & CEO, Ackerman Institute for the Family
Intrepid Women SeriesLois Braverman, President & CEO of the Ackerman Institute for the Family in New York City, lived and worked for thirty-two years in Iowa before joining the Ackerman Institute in her current role seven years ago. “The Ackerman Institute is one of the premier family therapy training institutes in the world. Some of the most innovative ideas and strategies for helping families and members of families get better,” said Braverman.
Being asked to lead the Ackerman Institute would be an honor for anyone in Braverman’s field, but the fact that throughout her career she has always regarded the Ackerman Institute as thought leaders in family therapy certainly seems to have foreshadowed Braverman’s appointment as the leader of the institute.
She was excited to come to the Ackerman Institute and become a part of the approach to family therapy that involves approaching issues both contextually and systemically, according to Braverman. “My whole team is thinking about best practices all the time.” added Braverman, “We are like a think tank and we are always pushing the envelope to find the best treatment interventions for each family.”
Exploring the Role of Women in Relationships
“From very early on in my career I was very interested in the intersection and interworking between feminism and psychotherapy,” explained Braverman. To this end, she was the founding editor of the Journal of Feminist Family Therapy where she published some of the earliest collections of writings on women, feminism and family therapy.
Braverman added, “I bring a very long history of interest in this field to be able to ask the question: how does a woman’s role in the workplace affect their physical health, mental health, and the health of the relationships they have with their family members?”
One of the biggest questions that Braverman strives to answer through her work is: What does it take to have a truly egalitarian relationship? She noted, “While most of the early work on this topic is focused on heterosexual relationships, I also approach this question from the perspective of a same sex couple as well.” She focuses a lot on the dynamics of power and privilege within relationships, especially with regard to ideas about gender roles and stereotypes.
“Although some things have changed, women are still the primary caretakers of their children, they use mental health services more than men, and they feel more burdened when something is going wrong with their kids,” Braverman noted.
Read more
Voice of Experience: Janet Hoffman, Managing Director, Accenture
Voices of ExperienceAlthough Janet Hoffman is proud of being a managing director of Accenture’s global retail practice, she does not take for granted the professional experience she gained working outside of Accenture on an entrepreneurial opportunity. “I liked the prospect of trying something very different,” said Hoffman, “and it was a great learning experience. I gained insight into things like the power of a brand, the importance of client relationships, and a different view of technology and various aspects of marketing, but I also realized what I missed most about Accenture which I call Intellect, Integrity and Investment in Innovation.”
Having the courage to take more risks is something that Hoffman wishes she understood the value of earlier in her career, but she has certainly proven that it is never too late to take your career off the beaten path as long as you leave a trail back to where you came from just in case you ever are asked or want to return. Hoffman explained, “Because I maintained so many professional and personal relationships with people at Accenture it was easy to come back to the company in this new role, which is to develop our most strategic client relationships in our Products operating group.”
Read more
Gender Pay Gap is Alive and Well in The C Suite: What’s Behind the Data?
Money TalksRecently, Bloomberg reported that women who hold executive leadership positions in Standard & Poors 500 Index companies earned 18 percent less, on average, than their male colleagues. Is this gap nothing more than a statistics problem where fewer women in those top spots yields a lower pay average? Or, are there other factors contributing to the large discrepancy between men’s and women’s salaries in the C-Suite?
Either way, the pay gap in the highest levels of leadership should be addressed, especially if women leaders are graduating from the same elite institutions and following similar career paths as their male counterparts. While C-Suite pay disparity is an interesting issue to explore on its own, it is not as if the pay gap reported by Bloomberg magically appeared at the executive level after years of salary equity between men and women.
Read more
Career Success: Closing the Loop on Feedback
Expert AnswersCountless studies have documented the significant career benefits of collecting feedback from colleagues about our business performance and approaches. The concept is not new, and the value is real. So why do many well-intentioned professionals fail to take full advantage of this potential competitive edge? In terms of talent management, why don’t leaders give their high-potential employees access to candid insights about their strengths and weaknesses as perceived by their co-workers and clients? That information could have a much stronger impact on their ability to succeed than attending another conference or webinar. Yes, the feedback process requires some effort. And it can feel awkward at first. However, the career benefits of gathering specific, meaningful and ongoing feedback far outweigh the challenges.
I’ve always believed that statement. But in the last year since publishing my book, “You – According to Them: Uncovering the blind spots that impact your reputation and your career,” I’ve seen remarkable proof that gathering feedback is the powerful (and often overlooked) fuel that accelerates careers. While I used the book to profile real-life case studies about inadvertent behaviors and attitudes that can stall careers, I didn’t fully anticipate the way that readers and workshop participants would so overwhelmingly embrace the feedback process. They were often genuinely surprised at the hidden information they discovered. And when they applied that information, their results were more dramatic than I ever could have imagined. In this article, I’ll share my findings from recent months and provide some specific ways that you can close the feedback loop to enhance your own career.
Read more
Will Harvard’s gender equity experiment change how leaders manage in the future?
Featured, NewsBy Pragati Verma
Having educated 25 of the current Fortune 500 CEOs, Harvard Business School (HBS) is a breeding ground for successful business leaders, albeit it’s so far, male alumni. Will the deep structural effort to create more gender parity at its campus, which is certainly commendable and brave, actually change how work gets done in the corporations that these students may eventually lead?
The New York Times article exploring this issue raises a very important question — “Are we trying to change the world 900 students at a time, or are we preparing students for the world in which they are about to go?” Will gender parity experiments in business schools like HBS change the balance, or rather lack of it, in every day work environments and consequently, will we see more women progress into leadership roles?
To understand the impact of HBS’s gender experiment in creating future female leaders, we obviously require time to measure the results and even then, it would be almost impossible to attribute success solely to HBS’s experiment.
Hopefully, this initiative will create a bigger pipeline of enlightened leaders of both genders. Assuming we do see more female leaders, will these new leaders do anything differently or are we going to see more of the same management style we have seen in the past?
Will Women change how work is done?
According to research conducted by David Matsa, assistant professor of finance at the Kellogg School of Management and Amalia Miller, an associate professor at the University of Virginia, female leaders may show traits that differ from male leaders, but not necessarily because of innate gender differences.
Instead of assessing the gender differences in corporate leadership on a granular level, Matsa and Miller chose to gather information on a grander scale by observing the performance of publicly listed Norwegian companies after the board quota legislation was passed in 2006, which required companies to ensure that women made up 40 percent of the board of directors within two years of the quota being adopted.
Interestingly enough, Matsa and Miller found that among the companies affected by the board quotas, there was no significant difference in the companies’ financial performance correlating with an increase in female leaders. What they did find, however, was that companies affected by the board quota retained more employees than companies not affected, resulting in higher labor costs.
According to Matsa and Miller, it is difficult to tell whether or not this means that women leaders value the relationships with their employees and their employees’ needs more than men, or if it simply reflects a gender difference in the approach toward long term business strategy. Even though the results of this one piece of research do not provide conclusive evidence that women lead differently than men, it provides some insight into the possibility that gender can influence business strategy.
However, from a pure observational viewpoint of female CEOs in the past decade, women leaders at big corporate houses seem no different from their male counterparts.
Hewlett Packard CEO Meg Whitman and Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer, for instance, took the heat for forcing work-from-home employees to join their colleagues in the office instead. Neither one of these top female leaders is showing any signs of redefining corporate principles that currently define workplace practices.
Susan Chipman, in a recent HBS discussion where James Heskett, Baker Foundation Professor, Emeritus at HBS asks, “How important is leadership gender in influencing the way We work?” provides some interesting food for thought on why the women who are making it to the top are seemingly keen to not make radical changes to how work is done
Chipman offers, “It is extremely naive to expect that stereotypical ideas about what women in general are like will have any meaning for the behavior of women in senior management positions. Women who arrive in such positions will be very atypical.”
Heskett himself opines that this could be the case and mentions how HBS alumni Sheryl Sandberg in her book does not suggest systemic change but “largely assumes that work will not be rethought. Instead, women will have to ‘lean in’ and face the long hours and judgments regarding the quantity of work as well as the quality of work they are able to do.”
Harvard professor Robin J Ely and Stanford professor Debra E Meyerson give some insight into why this reluctance to change the way we work could be occurring among business leaders.
They stated in an interview with Mallory Stark for the HBS newsletter, Working Knowledge: The Thinking That Leads, “The notion that the basic organizing principles that govern workplace practice, including many of the implicit rules for success, are closely aligned with idealized masculine interests, attributes, and life situations is a hard sell, especially to those who have become successful within this system—whether men or women, rich or poor, white or minority.”
Ely and Meyerson point out that the people who have successfully made a career in the current system could be resistant to changing it and are yet expected to be “influential change agents in the workplace” since they hold powerful positions. “Most people in organizations, including women, do not view their work practices—how work is defined and how work gets done—as having anything to do with race or gender. It’s just the way things are, like water to a fish or the air we breathe. What’s to notice? What’s to change?” they add.
What will the future hold?
Arguments that suggest that a critical mass of women in C- level positions alone will create cultural change are not true if the women themselves cannot acknowledge the inequity of the system that empowered them.
With that said, it is not mutually exclusive to lack progress and change while increasing the number of women in charge. Just don’t expect people because of their gender to automatically induce organizational change.
Behaviors from some female leaders may continue to resemble those of their male predecessors but at the very least, critical mass may reduce the stereotype of CEO’s being automatically male, white, and interestingly enough, taller than the average man.