Tag Archive for: career advice

Both Gender and Personality Play Into Perceptions of Transformative Leadership, and It Seems Women Have a Slight Edge

,

female leaderIs how you’re seen as a team leader impacted by your personality or the fact that you’re a woman? New research helps to understand how both interact when it comes to being perceived as a transformational leader by team members.

According to Finnish researchers Brandt and Edinger, who recently published their findings from an academic setting across 14 years in Gender in Management: An International Journal, sex does indeed matter in leading project teams: “Women tend to be more transformational team leaders than men.”

Five Practices of Transformational Leaders

Transformational leaders have been defined as people who are recognized as “change agents who are good role models, who can create and articulate a clear vision for an organization, who empower followers to meet higher standards, who act in ways that make others want to trust them, and who give meaning to organizational life.”

According to Kouzes and Posner and their book The Leadership Challenge, transformational leadership is based upon “The Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership” model, measured by the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI).

  • Challenging the Process (Challenging) – such as changing status quo, innovating, risk-taking
  • Inspiring a Shared Vision (Visioning) – such as passionately envisioning a future & enlisting others in common values & vision
  • Enabling others to Act (Enabling) – such as fostering collaboration & trust & strengthening others
  • Modelling the Way (Modelling) – such as leading by example & within organizational values in pursuing goals
  • Encouraging the Heart (Rewarding) – such as sharing in rewards and recognition, celebrating accomplishments

Brandt and Edinger indicate that transformational leadership has been connected in previous research with leadership effectiveness, job satisfaction, and higher motivation; and can enhance team learning, team member empowerment, group cohesiveness, and team performance.

Being Perceived as a Transformational Leader

Researchers Brandt and Edinger studied how personality type (as indicated by Myers Briggs) interacts with sex in impacting how members rate a leader’s transformational leadership capabilities within a team context. Measured within six-week project teams in an academic setting, Visioning was deemed less relevant and removed.

The widely-used MBTI measures personality preferences as: extroversion/ introversion; sensing/ intuition; thinking/ feeling; and judging/ perceiving. With the slight exception of thinking/feeling, personality types have been found to be distributed fairly evenly between the sexes.

Gender: Women Are More Transformational

In general, consistent with other meta-analysis studies, but not every single study, the researchers found women leaders received higher ratings in overall transformational leadership – especially in the behaviors of Modelling, Enabling, and Rewarding.

Women were more likely to practice leading by example, fostering collaboration and strengthening others, and celebrating and recognizing the accomplishments of team members as goals are achieved.

Indeed a 2014 Ketchum global survey ranked “leading by example” as the number one attribute important to great leadership, with 57% of people rating women as outperforming men at this trait, as well as 4 other top attributes including “bringing out the best in others.”

Broadly on gender, previous research by Brandt & Laiho, collecting data from 459 leaders and their subordinates across a 14 year period in different industries, investigated whether men and women with similar personalities act differently. Consistent with social role theory, they found that regardless of personality, women were more Enabling whereas men were more Challenging, rated both by themselves and those reporting to them.

Personality: Extraverted Personalities Are More Transformational

Personality influenced leadership perception for both sexes. Brandt & Edinger found that regardless of sex, “extraverted and judging personality types are more transformational leaders than introverted and perceiving ones.”

Extraverted team leaders were rated more Modelling of behavior, Rewarding of accomplishments, and Challenging of status quo than introverted team leaders. The researchers speculate extraverts may have more ease in stepping into short-term project leading roles, and also have a tendency to focus more on other people and give more positive feedback whereas introverts tend to focus and less on feedback, as they often require less themselves.

Previous research by Brandt & Laiho also confirmed extraverted female leaders were seen as more transformational and rewarding than intraverted ones.

Gender & Personality: Gender Impacts How Personality is Perceived

According to Brandt, “some personality types behave in the same way as a leader despite the gender, whereas some personalities act differently.” This also goes for how they’re perceived. In some cases, men and women with similar personality preferences are viewed differently by their team members as well as subordinates.

Among extravert team leaders, women were rated as more Modelling & Rewarding-oriented than their male counterparts, and so overall more transformational.

Being inclined away from extraversion seemed to penalize men more than women. The research found “introverted, sensing, thinking and perceiving female leaders are regarded as more transformational than men with similar preferences.”

The previous research by Brandt & Laiho also showed many areas in which women were rated as more transformational than men with similar personality preferences. They found, “Intuitive women were more Rewarding and scored higher on overall transformational profile than intuitive men. Thinking women were regarded as being more Enabling than thinking men, and finally, judging women were seen as more Enabling and transformational overall than judging men.”

The research also found that how leaders perceive their behavior (self-appraisal) does not always match up with how those they are leading rate it (appraisal). For example, feeling female female leaders evaluated themselves as more Enabling, but subordinates rated thinking female leaders to be more so.

Addressing Your Transformational Leadership Gaps

While the research in many ways indicates a gender advantage for women when it comes to transformational leadership which is worth taking note of, that’s also a dangerous game to rely on, as it keeps us in the realm of gender expectations and it hasn’t yet played out in outcome when looking at company profiles.

Social awareness in leadership “calls for a heightened sensitivity to how one’s behavior, in words and deeds, impacts others.” For this reason, insight into how your gender and personality combine to play into leadership perception matters.

Perception is ultimately perhaps most interesting as an input into helping chart your own leadership development. One take-away for female leaders is an opportunity to experiment with your behavior, no matter your personality, to grow in action and hence identity as a transformational leader.

For example, based on these findings women leaders who are more introverted might be advised to try out more extroverted behaviors – even if less comfortable – such as visibly giving positive feedback, outwardly rewarding accomplishments, and being visible in how you model the values you espouse.

The researchers suggest that all leaders can benefit by enhancing their self-knowledge: “When leaders know how they are perceived by others, they can address their weaknesses and maximize their strengths.”

/by

Office Housework: Lean In, But Don’t Be Leaned On

,

working from homeIf you make well-meaning, generous, happy to help contributions day in and out at the office and it goes without recognition or reward, do you make a sound? When it comes to your career, probably not. The truth is when it comes to both moving up and looking after yourself, too much helping might be hurting.

In a recent New York Times article, Sheryl Sandberg and Adam Grant write, “This is the sad reality in workplaces around the world: Women help more but benefit less from it.” After all, there’s a difference between leaning in and being leaned on.

Why We Help

Sandberg and Grant are quick to note that gender stereotypes are at play in creating expectations for women to “pitch in” thanklessly for the team: “When a man offers to help, we shower him with praise and rewards. But when a woman helps, we feel less indebted. She’s communal, right? She wants to be a team player. The reverse is also true. When a woman declines to help a colleague, people like her less and her career suffers. But when a man says no, he faces no backlash. A man who doesn’t help is ‘busy’; a woman is ‘selfish.’”

So it’s no surprise that Law Professor Joan C. Williams, author of What Works for Women at Work: Four Patterns Working Women Need to Know, says that for women, “Saying no without seeming touchy, humorless or supremely selfish is a particularly tricky balancing act.” Women continue to be left “holding the mop”, in the words of Senator Elizabeth Warren, for men in the office. Blogging on leadership, Williams defines office housework as:

“the administrative tasks, menial jobs, and undervalued assignments women are disproportionately given at their jobs.”

“Someone has to take notes, serve on committees and plan meetings — and just as happens with housework at home, that someone is usually a woman,” says Sandberg and Grant.

What happens when a woman says no? A study on altruistic behavior led by NYU’s Heilman tested how male and female employees would be evaluated based on choosing whether to stay late for an important meeting. A man was rated 14% more favourably than a woman for staying and helping. A woman was 12% more negatively than a man for declining.

It’s the equivalent of the “awww” factor daddy gets but not mom when he carries around the baby, and it’s unequally rewarded. Sandberg and Grant state, “Over and over, after giving identical help, a man was significantly more likely to be recommended for promotions, important projects, raises and bonuses. A woman had to help just to get the same rating as a man who didn’t help.”

If you’re finding yourself disproportionately engaged in leading mentor programs, coordinating the interns, taking notes, heading up thankless committees and special side initiatives, ordering the sandwiches, volunteering to stay late, and spending time behind the scenes coaching, you are helping organizational success according to many studies noted in the NYT article.

But the question is at what price to your career and to yourself?

Hindering Your Career

The NYT article stated, “Studies demonstrate that men are more likely to contribute with visible behaviors — like showing up at optional meetings — while women engage more privately in time-consuming activities like assisting others and mentoring colleagues.”

Behind the scenes help is valuable, but when it’s mostly women who are carrying the time and effort commitment on low-valued, low-visibility work, who is free to step up to the high-value, high-visibility opportunities?

“The person taking diligent notes in the meeting almost never makes the killer point,” Sandberg and Grant write in the NYT. And Williams asserts in the Washington Post, “We have to get women out of office housework and onto more projects that really matter, both to them and to their companies, if we want more women to be successful in reaching positions of influence.”

Sacrificing Yourself

Williams writes, “Women are often asked to play the selfless good citizen…by taking on assignments that men don’t want or that the organization doesn’t highly reward.” But what happens when women act selfless, or out of our need to be dutiful or helpful, is we too often neglect ourselves.

Women are more likely to feel burned out at work when it comes to emotional exhaustion, according to an analysis of 183 different studies across 15 countries. According to another study, women’s focus on and involvement with others to the exclusion of taking care of their own self can cause stress and depression underneath.

Being helpful can create personally rewarding interactions, but women need to be careful that they’re not exhausting their own energy and resources while colluding with multiplying expectations upon themselves.

If your identity becomes locked up in being the helpful one, which your gender already infers, then it becomes an expectation you serve and reaffirm. When out of balance, being of service to others at the workplace can mean being of dis-service to yourself.

A Mindset Change

Sandberg and Grant suggest that organizations should chose to value, track, and recognize acts of helping, as well as address the imbalance in assigning this work. They also suggest men could step up to contribute their share and help vocalize the unsung contributions.

In the meantime, they suggest breaking free of the cycle of mop-holding comes down to women, to you: “For women, the most important change starts with a shift in mind-set: If we want to care for others, we also need to take care of ourselves. One of us, Adam, has conducted and reviewed numerous studies showing that women (and men) achieve the highest performance and experience the lowest burnout when they prioritize their own needs along with the needs of others. By putting self-concern on par with concern for others, women may feel less altruistic, but they’re able to gain more influence and sustain more energy. Ultimately, they can actually give more.”

The NYT article pointed out an exec who found more efficient ways – such as a FAQ manual – to address requests for help, as well as caring ways to decline over-stretching. Only then did she make partner. You can be as giving, caring, and considerate in how you say no to others while recognizing your needs and limits as you can be in saying yes.

Women are quick at helping, and it’s part of the path to success, but that doesn’t mean we have to shoulder all the under-valued work at a cost to ourselves.

Perhaps we need to qualify Sandberg’s call-to-action: Lean in, but don’t be leaned on.

By Aimee Hansen

/by

The Formula for Selling Anybody, Anything, Anytime

,

women salesHere’s the thing: sometimes we’re selling our ideas, sometimes we’re selling our products and, these days, many of us are selling ourselves as the best candidate for the job/as the person who deserves a promotion. With this in mind, here’s the proven formula for selling your best self to anybody, anywhere, anytime.

First: Yale University did a study of the 12 most persuasive words in the English language. What they discovered is that the most persuasive word in the English language is “you.” Consequently, I recommend throwing it around a lot: “As I’m sure you know,” “As I’m sure you’ve heard,” “I wanted to talk to you today,” etc.

Second: California-based Social Psychologist Ellen Langer revealed that there is one word in the English language that increases the possibility of cooperation from 60 to 94%. No, that is not a typo. I will repeat: 60 to 94%. This word is “Because.”

Lastly: “The Duncan Hines Cake Mix Marketing Theory.” When Duncan Hines first began making cake mix, the decision to have you at home add the egg was made in the marketing department. Why is this effective? Because they realized that when we add the egg we feel proud because we contributed; we can say, “I baked!” How does this work in a business scenario? You need to articulate how you can contribute to the other person’s success and/or how they can contribute to yours so that what is created becomes your shared success.

So that’s your formula: you + because + the egg = success.

Following are three different ways you can apply this formula for success

Talking to an Interviewer:

Too often we spend our interviewing time talking about why we are right for the job. This sounds a lot like, “And I just think this company would be perfect for me/would help me meet my goals.” No. What you need to be talking about is how you are going to contribute to your future boss’s/the company’s success once you are hired.

What might this sound like?

“I wanted to talk to you today because your job description/your company’s mission statement/your bestselling product is X, and my skill set/my personal passion/my sales experience is in Y. Applying the full force of my expertise to this job will enable us both to reach our goals.”

Talking to Your Boss about a Brewing “Situation”:

The use of the word “situation” here is quite deliberate. The White House doesn’t have a “Crisis Room,” they have a “Situation Room.” Likewise, you don’t have a crisis– you have a situation that needs to be resolved.

So, what would the formula for success sound like here?

“I wanted to bring a potential situation to your attention immediately because it requires expert attention. X has occurred and I have come up with the following two, possible solutions. Is there one that you prefer?”

In this instance, their egg is not as much the mention of their expert attention, but the opportunity you are giving them to apply that expertise to two possible resolution strategies. Having them to choose which they prefer (and tell you why it’s far better) not only allows them to add their egg, but to choose the temperature at which the solution is “baked.”

Talking to a Potential Target at a Networking event

Too many networking events are about what others can do for us, rather than what we can do for them. In my experience, however, the most successful networkers aren’t asking, “What can you do for me?” but “What can I do for you?” In this scenario, then, the formula would likely sound like this:

“Hello, I’m X,” (if your target is standing with another person, or in a group, introduce yourself to everyone present.) “I wanted to introduce myself because I know you are the visionary behind X idea/product/company, and I wanted to introduce you to Y/write about you in my newsletter/ask if I could help you organize your next charity event.”

As you can see, the offer doesn’t need to be huge — the fact that you made it at all is what helps you stand out. Leaving room for them to add the egg of their choice is what will ensure your successful connection.

Happy baking!

Guest Contribution by Frances Cole Jones

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

/by

Accountability, Leadership Responsibility, and Common Sense: Leaders Share What Makes Diversity Initiatives Work

,

Professional WomenGender diversity and inclusion doesn’t just happen, as Catalyst shows every year at its awards conference. A sustained improvement in the percentage of women in corporate workforces and leadership comes from hard work by companies to achieve and maintain set goals. It also requires a visibly demonstrated commitment to diversity by those in charge.

Honorees at this year’s Catalyst Awards Conference shared their companies’ secrets to success in increasing the percentage of women in leadership levels and throughout their companies’ workforces. The winning programs at Chevron Corporation and Proctor & Gamble combined three tried and true ingredients for advancing women at work: accountability, common sense, and leaders who took personal responsibility for improving diversity and inclusion at their companies.

“How we are behaving in any interaction speaks louder than any company effort,” said Melody Boone Meyer, president of Chevron Asia Pacific Exploration and Production Company. “Your behavior is how people read what’s real or not. The communication is there, but much more important is whether you’re living that.”

“Your behavior is how people read what’s real or not. The communication is there, but much more important is whether you’re living that.”

At the conference in March, Meyer, along with Mike Wirth, executive vice president of downstream and chemicals at Chevron; William P. Gipson, chief diversity officer and senior vice president of research and development at Proctor & Gamble; and Colleen Jay, president of global hair care and color at Proctor & Gamble, took to the stage to describe not only how their companies changed their approach to improving gender diversity, but also their personal journeys with taking responsibility for diversity as well.

As Meyer said, “Leaders need to live it.”

Accountability

Leaders from both companies detailed how they were held accountable for meeting corporate gender diversity goals.

Wirth explained that, at Chevron, leaders have to answer for their diversity action plans as part of their performance reviews. He also described an exercise the company’s CEO had leaders undertake: “The CEO said I want you to go out and spend time with three people who are very different from you and I expect you to respond,” he recalled.

“Accountability is nothing unless you have goals,” Gipson agreed. “Targets change everything.”

Proctor & Gamble ties diversity goals to executives’ stock options, he said. But the goals aren’t easy to meet and they aren’t merely window dressing to placate investors who care about diversity – they’re stretch goals.

“To really move the needle, you need to have some stretching,” Gipson said.

Indeed, Wirth commented, Chevron even employed reverse inventives at one point. “If you didn’t make progress, the bonus would be affected for everyone in that group,” he said, explaining that Chevron’s leaders wanted to make sure executives understood that diversity was a shared responsibility.

Common Sense

Diversity initiatives wouldn’t work without a heavy dose of common sense, as well. For example, Gipson explained that a few years ago, leaders at Proctor & Gamble realized women were leaving the company at a disproportionate rate. The company undertook a workforce survey to figure out why.

One of the reasons, P&G discovered, was that the company’s flex work program just wasn’t working. Offering employees the ability to work flexibly is one way companies can help their entire workforce meet their personal responsibilities. Since women as a group bear the brunt of child- and elder-care disproportionately compared to men, flex programs have been identified as a way for companies to retain female employees.

It turned out, Gipson said, that P&G’s flexible work program wasn’t flexible enough.

“We were trying to mandate when and where to work flexibly, but life is not really that way,” he explained. The company amended its program based on the survey results.

Leadership Responsibility

Finally, the panelists described what is possibly the most important part of an effective gender diversity initiative. Leaders have to internalize the value of diversity and demonstrate that value in their personal actions.

For example, Johnson said she and other P&G executives help each other keep track of blind spots.

“We help keep everyone sharp so we can role model that going forward,” she explained.

Similarly, Wirth described how he had to face his own personal blind spots a few years ago when Chevron undertook a dramatic restructuring. He picked all white men to lead his new team.

“I got a lot of feedback from the CEO, my kids, and women in my organization,” he said. “I had to do a lot of reflection on myself. I genuinely believed I had the right beliefs and behavior, but that’s not good enough. People need to see action.”

“I got a lot of feedback from the CEO, my kids, and women in my organization,”

He continued, “As a white male, I’ve got an extra responsibility to catalyze the discussion [on diversity], and create an environment where everyone is supported and everyone understands the expectations.”

Gipson described how, as an R&D executive, he had to learn to “embrace the soft stuff.”

“It’s the hardest stuff,” he said. “But no matter how much progress we’ve made, we can always get better.”

That attitude – that we can always get better – is an important one in diversity and inclusion. Simply meeting the numbers isn’t good enough. True inclusion will require everyone in the workforce – especially leaders – to keep pushing themselves harder to identify and change their own personal weaknesses when it comes to diversity and working to change their companies for the better.

By Melissa J. Anderson (New York City)

/by

Listening Is Getting Harder, but It’s Necessary for Leaders

,

women in technologyEvolving digital technology demands more communication and accessibility from all employees, which leads to a culture of multi-tasking. But as leaders face increased communication demands, it’s important that they retain the value of listening.

Listening is Getting More Difficult

Active listening has been identified as one of the ten attributes of embodied leadership. Effective listening by leaders has been noted as the first step in creating trust within organizations. Also research shows that supervisor listening contributes to employee job satisfaction, satisfaction with the supervisor, and fosters a strong and beneficial exchange between leaders and team members.

Yet according to Accenture’s #ListenLearnLead study of 3,600 business professionals across 30 countries, the vast majority of professionals (64%) feel that listening has become more difficult in today’s workplace.

While nearly all (96%) of global professionals judged themselves to be “good listeners”, nearly all (98%) also report multi-tasking at least part of the day.

The study found that eight in ten respondents said they multi-task on conference calls with work emails (66%), instant messaging (35%), personal emails (34%), social media (22%) and reading news and entertainment (21%). In fact, professionals report distracted listening and divided attention unless they are held directly and visibly responsible within the context of the meeting.

“Digital is changing everything, including the ways in which we communicate. In turn, the way we communicate is changing how we listen, learn and lead in the workplace,” says Nellie Berroro, Managing Director, Global Inclusion & Diversity at Accenture. “Today, truly listening means not just watching our nonverbal cues in face-to-face meetings, but also maintaining our focus on conference calls, staying present, and resisting the urge to multi-task with instant messages and texts.”

Multi-Tasking Means More Quantity, But Less Quality

The attraction to multi-tasking seems to be a double-edged sword in the workplace that pins quantity against quality.

In Accenture’s study, 64% of Millennials, 54% of Gen Xers, and 49% of Baby Boomers reported multi-tasking during at least half of their work day. While 66% of professionals agreed multi-tasking enables them to get more done at work, 36% report that distractions prevent them from doing their best work. Millennials were at the extreme on each – feeling multi-tasking meant getting more done (73%) and yet distractions prevented them from doing their best work (41%).

However it’s traditional interruptions imposed by others (telephone calls & unscheduled meetings & visitors) rather than technology that were reported as most disruptive, perhaps due to the lack of control over these distractions.

What suffers? The trade-offs reported include decreased focus, lower-quality work, and diminished team relationships. But can leaders afford these trade-offs, too?

Despite the Benefits, Are Leaders Too Accessible?

“Our survey found technology both helps and hinders effective leadership,” says Borrero. On the positive side, 58% of survey respondents saw technology as a benefit for leaders enabling them to communicate quickly with their teams, allowing both time and geographic flexibility (47%) as well as accessibility (46%).

However, 62% of women and 54% of men felt technology made leaders over-stretched by being too accessible. 50% of respondents felt it forced multi-tasking and 40% felt it distracted from culture and relationship building. 55% felt a top challenge for leaders is information overload.

Borrero recommends practicing discipline when needed in disengaging from other technologies to give full focus to the material in front of you, such as putting your mobile device on silent during phone conferences and actively noting key points. “When you face information overload,” she says, “become comfortable with turning off technology. For example, you might disconnect at night, so you can recharge, and decide not to look at your phone until the morning.”

Importantly, when it comes to effective leadership and overcoming barriers to it, focusing on quality of communication and connection matters most – and that may very well start with listening.

The most important leadership attributes identified by the study were the “soft skills” of effective communication (55%), ability to manage change (47%), and ability to inspire others and ideas (45%), closely followed by understanding team members.

Yet this is also where skills suffer: the two most commonly perceived obstacles to effective team leadership were a lack of interpersonal skills (50%) and a lack of communication skills (44%).

Getting Better At Listening

While digital technology brings many advantages, leaders who compromise at listening may compromise their ability to lead effectively.

A Westminster Business School report highlights, “Listening is an essential skill in all situations and it is particularly important for leaders and managers to actually hear what others say, not simply what we think we hear them say…All great leadership starts with listening. That means listening with an open mind, heart and will. It means listening to what is being said as well as what isn’t being said.”

Despite its importance to leadership, leaders are too often ineffective at truly listening according to an HBR article by Christine M. Riordan. She notes, “The ability and willingness to listen with empathy is often what sets a leader apart.”

Riordan outlines three key behaviors leaders can practice that are linked with empathetic listening:

1) Hearing with all of your senses and acknowledging what you’ve heard.

This means “recognizing all verbal and nonverbal cues, including tone, facial expressions, and other body language.” It’s as much about listening to what is not said as what is said, and probing a bit deeper, as well as acknowledging others feelings or viewpoints and the act of sharing them.

2) Processing what is being shared and heard.

This means “understanding the meaning of the messages and keeping track of the (key) points of the conversation.” Effective leaders are able to capture and remember global themes, key messages, and points of agreement and disagreement.

3) Responding to and encouraging communication.

This means “assuring others that listening has occurred and encouraging communication to continue.” Acknowledging others verbally or non-verbally, asking clarifying questions, or paraphrasing reflects consideration of their input. This can also mean following-up to ensure others know listening has occurred.

According to Accenture’s Borrero, “Leaders are role models employees emulate, so it’s important for them to set a good example. In our increasingly hyper-connected digital workplace, we all need to practice ‘active listening,’ including paraphrasing, taking notes and asking questions. At Accenture, we offer a number of courses in effective listening, which is critical to our company as we focus on serving clients.”

In today’s leadership context, where effective leadership means showing social awareness not just self-awareness, leaders may employ technology to help them do it, but one way or another, it’s important they find a way to truly listen.

By Aimee Hansen

/by

The Way You’re Coping With Stress Is Making It Worse: What You Should Do Instead to Build Your Resiliency

,

women stressedOn a typical day, you’re most likely squeezing in three days worth of work. You have your scheduled work time consisting of meetings, servicing clients and customers, managing communications, and connecting with colleagues scattered around the globe. Your second workday consists of the one before, after and in-between. You get up early to get a jump on emails, you stay late to get work done, and you multitask during the day in an attempt to be as productive as possible. Your third workday begins when you leave the office. You have to pick up food for dinner on the way home, perhaps get the kids to practice, run a load of laundry and make sure the house hasn’t fallen apart. Before you go to bed you see the opportunity to get on your computer to get more work done. No wonder you’re completely stressed and exhausted by the end of the day!

You just need to find better ways to reduce or manage your stress, right? Wrong. Unfortunately, there’s no way to reduce your stress. Your job is never going to ask less of you, nor are your loved ones. The demands in your life will only continue to increase as you move up in your career and your personal life becomes more complex. In addition, stress is not just something that happens in your head. It’s a chemical, hormonal event that radically changes your chemistry and physiology.

The hormones released in response to stress can have many negative effects on your body and brain. As just one example, the stress hormone cortisol kills cells in the brain relating to memory, learning and goal setting. It’s responsible for insomnia. It makes you crave high-fat, high-sugar foods in large amounts, and to store a majority of it as fat, specifically around the midsection.

But the good news is, when we understand the physiology of the stress response, we can build our resiliency to stress. We can train our bodies to recover from stress more quickly and efficiently, as well as raise our threshold for stress. And if that’s not enough, resiliency training can also improve our health and help us lose body fat.

Up until now, many of the things you’re doing to cope with the stresses you’re facing are actually making things worse. You may skip meals and workouts, sacrifice sleep to get more work done, grab sweets or salty snacks, rev yourself up with caffeine and bring yourself down with alcohol. Here are four things you may be doing that are exacerbating your stress, along with tips to build your resiliency:

1. You sacrifice sleep to get things done.

It’s tempting to trade sleep for extra hours of productivity, but lack of sleep ramps up our sympathetic nervous system, pushing us in the direction of the stress response. Simultaneously, it makes the parasympathetic nervous system – which is related to restoring balance and calm — less effective. Sleep deprivation also increases body fat levels, specifically around the midsection. This abdominal fat is not only frustrating, it also increases our risk of diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and even premature death. Keep to a regular sleep and wake cycle, and aim to get between 7-9 hours each night. Sleep is one of the best tools we have for the body to recover from stress.

2. You drink caffeine to get energy and make up for lack of sleep.

In addition to increasing blood pressure, caffeine stimulates the release of the stress hormones adrenaline and cortisol. To make matters worse, caffeine has been shown to work synergistically with mental stress to further increase cortisol levels. From a stress perspective, cutting out caffeine is ideal. Why voluntarily pump more stress hormones into your body? If you choose to consume caffeine, do so in small amounts.

3. You skip meals because you’re too busy to eat.

When we skip meals or go too long without eating, blood glucose (a form of sugar the body uses for energy from many of the foods we eat) drops. When there’s not enough glucose, the body thinks a famine is occurring, the stress response is stimulated and the body secretes cortisol. This puts us into food seeking mode to get much needed energy into the body. Cortisol makes us eat large amounts of food containing fat and sugar, and to store much of this extra energy away in our fat cells for the next glucose emergency. Maintain blood glucose levels and minimize stress by eating about every 3 hours, alternating between moderate sized meals and small snacks.

4. You skip your workout because you don’t have time.

Stress hormones are specifically designed to fuel a short burst of intense physical activity – fighting or fleeing. When we do this, it burns them off and releases another class of hormones that restore balance and counteract the negative consequences of stress. The good news is just 30-60 seconds of intense exercise produces these feel good hormones. Sprint up a flight of stairs, or do a few jumping jacks or burpees. Worst-case scenario, do a few of these shorts bursts to hit the reset button on stress, or squeeze in a few minutes here and there. Exercise can be accumulated throughout the day in 10-minute bouts, which can be just as effective for improving fitness and decreasing body fat as exercising for 30 minutes straight.

For more strategies on how to build your resiliency to stress, read Jenny’s book The Resiliency rEvolution: Your Stress Solution for Life, 60 Seconds at a Time.

Jenny C. Evans is the author of THE RESILIENCY rEVOLUTION: Your Stress Solution For Life 60 Seconds at a Time (Wise Ink Creative Publishing; 2014). She is also founder and CEO of PowerHouse Performance, where she works with thousands of C-suite executives, leaders, and employees worldwide to help them improve their resilience, performance and productivity, while enhancing their health.

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

/by

Changemakers: The Athena Leadership Column

,

Women workingVenture capitalist Jeanne Sullivan’s bio is one that defies history. Hers is the resume that appeared – under a woman’s name – thirty years ahead of the pack. She was a partner in Olivetti, and hammered out 40 tech deals in seven years, which “emboldened me,” she says, as Sullivan was “sitting at the table with the great VCs.”

This led her to co-found StarVest Partners – now a hugely successful VC firm – in 1998, when women angels and VCs in the tech world were mythically rare characters. She is revered today as one of those women who is not only vastly successful, but also down-to-earth, funny, and focused on mentoring younger women in technology.

What is the secret to success?

In this series of Athena Changemakers articles, I want to ask the question: what makes the outliers in women’s leadership, different? What lessons did they teach themselves? What skill sets do they themselves highlight? This set of questions, put to this small, unusual population of female “superachievers”, is critical at our point in US and global history. It is now well documented what institutional hurdles women are facing in the workplace; but far less well documented – since it is much less socially acceptable to talk about. Is the bottom-line learning about what the very successful cadre of female changemakers actually did differently from their equally talented peers? Tracking that ‘difference’ in these unusual women’s approach and perhaps even philosophy is the goal of this series.

In a recent interview, Sullivan identified six guidelines for success for women starting out in the tech field – or in any field.

Rule #1

First, “identify your passion,” she insisted. She knew early on that she herself was “an inner geek”and she comments that “I was the one who wanted to take the watch apart.” She also stresses how important it is to trust one’s own unique sensibilities: “with all the windows out there, I knew one was lit for me.”

Rule #2

Then: “Put role models in front of girls.” “We only were teachers, mommies, nurses and secretaries,” she explains of her generation – but she knew that “I wanted to carry a briefcase. I wanted to be in the business world.”

Rule #3

Her third rule – “Build your networks.” Sullivan’s supportive Italian family of eight kids was a resource for her in boosting her sense that she could do anything. But she explains that with what she calls “intelligent teams”, citing the work of MIT professor Thomas Malone, anyone can create that supportive emotional/ professional environment around herself. In 1980, she joined a law firm that attracted ‘computer geeks” and built her first “kitchen cabinet”. She stresses the value of always cultivating an “intelligent team” of vibrant, supportive men and women to nurture one’s goals. Sullivan makes the case that it is up to the woman to hand-pick this group around her. This guidance is quite different from the usual advice women are given about success in the workplace – advice to adapt and fit in, strategize and suppress. It is startling to consider, as it presumes a truly healthy female consciousness and a revamped social Darwinianism: a woman is actually choosing her own environment to enhance her own chances of success, rather than being at the mercy of her environment.

Rule #4

Her fourth rule for success is surprising in its simplicity: “Go to conferences.” Sullivan did not grow up in privilege – she worked hard to enrich her own environment. She explains that any young woman can take her curiosity and passion – whether it is for fashion, tech, or any sector – and find a conference. It is cheap, she says, or free, to go inside. And if you ask questions, people will tell you anything, she notes. She claims that she learned about the tech world from “covering the floor” at conferences: “Are you hiring?” and “Who are your competitors?” are some of the questions she asked. This easy, practical step “into” a world is actually quite important: the obstacle many young women face in imagining what to do next to realize their professional dreams is a sense of mystification – that the world they want to enter is behind high locked walls with secret passcodes.

Rule #5

Her fifth rule? “Don’t look for ‘Safe”’. Sullivan cautions that women are often risk-averse – a finding that is confirmed by the research compiled at Barnard College’s Athena Center for Leadership Studies. Indeed, the latest peer-reviewed studies show that women in the workplace tend to identify for themselves an aversion to taking bold, strategic risks – along with a reluctance to advocate for themselves, and a hesitation to engage in longterm visioning — as areas in which they themselves would like to grow. Sullivan argues that in today’s world, you should not stay in a safe environment that lacks challenges, but should “punch your ticket and move along” as the landscape for opportunity is so vibrant.

Her most provocative conclusions are grouped under a riff she calls, I think hilariously, “Stupid Things Women Do.” I recognize these from years of watching women pitch, and from presentations to me by young women seeking mentoring. “Be prepared,” she says. “Read the board package! Many women show up to the pitch meeting not fully prepared. Ask them pointed, informed questions. Pitch better! Spit it out of your mouth!” she laughs. “Tell me what you are building!” Indeed, there is often so much anticipatory language – what we in journalism call “throat-clearing” – in women’s pitches, that her advice to get right to the gist of the matter is invaluable.

“How do you get there?” she asks, of that perfect pitch? By testing it with your “personal board of advisors.” She adds that you have to “know how to execute and scale”; that women often “leave off the marketing plan.” Finally, she reminds us, “have domain knowledge” – whatever it is, in the sector in which you want to “play big,” you have to know your field and show that you do.

Finally – back to your “intelligent teams” — call the people around you to open up those doors. “That is what guys do,” she remarks. “They call their buddies. ‘You saw that guy last month – can you get me a meeting?’ Do you know women who do that?” she asks rhetorically, as we all know the answer. Sullivan, in fact, cites a study that shows that if a woman knew her best friend’s husband could fund her venture – she still would not ask him for investment. That hesitation to be “pushy” with one’s peers, alone, is a real disadvantage for women.

The beauty of a role model such as Jeanne Sullivan is that she makes geeky, tech-savvy, knowledgeable, ambitious, even pushy advocacy for one’s own idea – seem really charming, inspiring, amusing, delightful, and eminently do-able. Sullivan sees a different future for the young women of today with their own ventures and dreams: “I see a kinder, gentler user interface of women VCs and Angels” she says. “Not gentler in the sense of softer but – they want you, young women, to succeed.”

With Sullivan’s advice and example, many more of them surely will.

By Naomi Wolf

/by

Update 2015: Is the FTSE 100’s Boardroom Progress real?

,

BoardRoomThe news is out…at 23.5% the representation of women in the UK FTSE 100 boardroom has doubled over the past four years (12.5% in 2011), with the voluntary 2015 target of 25% within close reach. But is that number standing on stilts?

The race by businesses and government to hit the UK number has been a voluntary effort to avoid the threat of EU-imposed gender quotas. But the resounding press response to the latest annual report is a round of hands flying up to question how a weak executive pipeline is going to deliver sustainable change in the British boardroom. Not to mention the implications of a serious gender imbalance when it comes to executive directors.

Overall FTSE Numbers Reveals Progress & Room to Grow

Released in the Women on Boards report and crunched by Cranfield School of Management, the FTSE 100 numbers show progress at the top. There are now 263 female directors, with only 17 more to appoint this year to meet the target. There are no longer any all-male FTSE 100 boards, and 41 companies have over 25% female boards (vs 12 in 2011).

FTSE 250 numbers reveal significant rates of change, but ultimately still low numbers with only 18% women representation on boards (vs 8% in 2011) and 23 all-male boards remaining (vs 131 in 2011). The UK now ranks fifth among Europe in terms of the number of women on boards.

“We must celebrate this outstanding achievement and the change in culture that is taking hold at the heart of British business. The evidence is irrefutable: boards with a healthy female representation outperform their male-dominated rivals,” said Vince Cable, Britain’s business secretary. Cable expects to see 1/3 representation by 2020.

He commented, “We know that’s where the tipping point lies in influencing decision-making. We must also focus on ensuring women are rising fast enough through the pipeline and taking up executive positions.”

“The tide is turning as we see senior women in every sector and across all industries, breaking through the barriers to succeed at the highest levels,” said Education Secretary Nicky Morgan.

However, both Cable and Morgan are quick to point out the significant work yet to do, namely and glaringly on the female executive pipeline.

Behind the Numbers, A Glaring Gap In Female Executives

Looking closer at the FTSE numbers reveals a deeper story – a serious dearth of female executives, setting for a gender “executive” imbalance in the boardroom.

Woman make up less than 1 of 10 executive directors in the FTSE 100 – comprising 8.6% of executive directors, but 28.5% of non-executive directors. Since 2011, there’s been a 204% increase in female non-executive appointments (122 seats), but only a 33% increase in female executive appointments (6 seats).

Less than 10% of FTSE 100 female directors are executives whereas 30% of male directors are.

Even more worrying, women make up less than 1 of 20 executive directors in the FTSE 250 -comprising 4.6% of executive directors, but 23.6% of non-executive directors. All new additions since 2011 have come at the non-executive level.

Only 7% of FTSE 250 female directors are executives (vs. 17% in 2011) whereas over 30% of male directors are executives.

You can count FTSE 100 Women CEO’s on just one hand – because there’s five, and that number hasn’t changed since 2015. You’ll need two for the FTSE 250 Women CEO’s – there’s nine.

So British boardrooms are predominantly non-executive, but that’s nearly entirely true for women. This raises at least two big questions.

One is around stability of change. The other is around real influence.

Where are All the Executive Women?

The numbers certainly reflect a UK turnaround on research findings that women are less likely to be promoted to the boardroom if they haven’t held an executive position. But that doesn’t make for a stable model for continued growth.

According to Cranfield’s Dr. Elena Doldor, without more meaningful pipeline targets, progress will stagnate or slip.

“Our predictions suggest that as we approach 2020, women’s representation on FTSE 100 boards is likely to stagnate around 28%,” she shared. “There are still not enough women on executive committees or in the executive pipeline. Introducing aspirational and measurable targets for women at all levels is the only way to achieve real progress.”

Lord Davies also called for urgency in addressing “the loss of talented senior women from the executive pipeline.” Research shows female managers over 40 in the UK earn 35% less than their male counterparts. In more than one way, the pipeline isn’t supporting retaining women.

A recent survey showed a fifth of UK women believe it is “simply impossible” for them to reach a senior management role, and half reported that men make most of the decisions in their company. Yet a third dream of reaching CEO or board level.

Ann Pickering, HR Director of O2, who partnered with the CIPD on the research, writes, “A much wider cultural shift is required – and a hell of a lot more effort.” She continues, “It’s becoming a bit of a buzzword, but it really is all about the pipeline – ensuring that women at every level of the organisation are getting the support and encouragement they need to progress, so that a senior role is the logical culmination of that progression.”

One suggestion for comprehensive action put forth by Jude Browne, a Director of the University of Cambridge Centre for Gender Studies, is identifying “thwarted critical mass – situations in which a disproportionate number of women occupy positions at a certain level and yet the natural progression one might expect to see does not materialize.” In other words, addressing advancement for the masses of women that get stuck in the pipeline, in the place they’re actually stuck – not just at the top.

Browne asserts, “The Critical Mass Marker approach would ensure that people who are equipped with the relevant skills and experience are able to move up and across institutional structures irrespective of characteristics such as race or sex.”

Achieving Influence or Presence?

So, less than 1 in 10 women directors are executives. 1 in 3 male directors are. Those female non-executive board members are unlikely to be renumerated the same, even as their male non-executive counterparts. And will they pull equal per capita weight in critical decision making?

The jury is out. But according to an FT article, “Stella Creasy, shadow business minister, conducted her own research on FTSE 100 boards, and concluded that the drive to appoint women as non-executive directors meant they were ‘making up the numbers and not getting a chance to make the decisions’.”

The UK has everyone’s attention and is touting the business impact of women in the boardroom, but the surge has been motivated by a hope to evade gender quotas. That’s not the same as positive motivation towards gender diversity across the board (meaning, not only the board). Maybe the real opportunity, the one that’s held within the pipeline challenge, is to prove a multi-level commitment to real change.

By Aimee Hansen

/by

Having a baby? Why choosing the right employer will make your life better

,

returnersOff the back of Facebook and Google’s announcement that employees will get financial assistance if they want to freeze their eggs, we look at what happens if you decide to take the plunge and have a child now. As any woman in the workforce or with a family can attest, there is no such thing as perfect timing when planning a baby but if you are thinking of doing it you need to choose your employer wisely. All employers are not created equal with leave and benefits especially in the U.S. where is the only one offering no paid compensation for maternity leave out of 21 high-income countries.

Read more

/by

Why Being “True to Yourself” Can Hold You Back From Your Leadership Journey

By Aimee Hansen

“Countless books and advisers tell you to start your leadership journey with a clear sense of who you are. But that can be a recipe for staying stuck in the past. Your leadership identity can and should change each time you move on to bigger and better things,” says Herminia Ibarra, professor of Leadership and Learning at INSEAD.

In an article entitled “The Authenticity Paradox” in Harvard Business Review’s January 2015 issue, Ibarra challenges the predominant views and momentum on authenticity to assert that “true to self” approaches can hinder leadership growth. She argues “a too rigid definition of authenticity can get in the way of effective leadership,” often keeping leaders from evolving as they gain new insight and experience.

“Because going against our natural inclinations can make us feel like impostors, we tend to latch on to authenticity as an excuse for sticking with what’s comfortable,” she explains. “In my research on leadership transitions, I have observed that career advances require all of us to move way beyond our comfort zones. At the same time, however, they trigger a strong countervailing impulse to protect our identities.”

Misunderstanding the Leadership Journey

How did we all come to revere “true to self” approaches? In her book ACT LIKE A LEADER, THINK LIKE A LEADER, Ibarra states the “holy grail of leadership development” that says you must navigate your way to leadership from a clear inner compass of who you are (inside-out development) is a fallacy derived from a research tradition of profiling highly effective leaders NOT the journey they took to get there. Ibarra’s research on the “development of leader identity” suggests that people become a leader by acting like a leader, which necessitates acting outside of your self-perceived identity rather than within it.

According to what she calls the out-sight principle, when it comes to leadership, what we do changes how we think, what we value, and who we see ourselves as – not the other way around. She writes, “Simply put, change happens from the outside in, not from the inside out.”

The Danger of Staying “True to Self” for Women

Ibarra spoke to us about how latching onto authenticity plays out for women. “The more common trap I see women falling into is not acting like a man but sticking too long to an authentic but outdated way of leading.”

She shared a scenario of role-transition in which both men and women were clearly out of their depths. “Women were more likely to try to prove their competence by demonstrating technical mastery over the long term; while men are more intent on making a positive first impression to create relationships.”

She explains how latching onto authenticity back-fired, “The women cited their reliance on ‘substance rather than form’ as a more ‘authentic’ strategy and thus as a source of pride; yet they were also frustrated with their inability to win their superiors’ and clients’ recognition.” She observed, “Despite the value they placed on authenticity, their cautious and protective behavior wasn’t necessarily true to self either, and they had a harder time enlisting others’ support because they were perceived as less adaptive and flexible than their male peers.”

Ibarra strongly emphasizes however “the divergent strategies of men and women are not due to issues of confidence or personality, i.e. women being more cautious, prudent or less risk taking and bold than men. What explains women’s heightened authenticity concerns is ‘second generation bias,’ defined as the powerful yet often invisible barriers to women’s advancement that arise from cultural beliefs about gender, as well as workplace structures, practices, and patterns of interaction that inadvertently favor men and accumulate to interfere with a woman’s ability to see herself and be seen by others as a leader.”

The antidote to that self-perception gap, of course, is leading. INSEAD research has shown that the more leadership experience women have, the less identity conflict they experience as a woman and a leader.

The authenticity paradox is especially acute for women in male-dominated companies. Ibarra told us, “Stepping up to leadership in male-dominated cultures is particularly challenging for women because they must establish credibility in cultures that equate leadership with behaviors that are more typical of men and where powerful female role models are scarce… If they ‘don’t look like a leader; to the seniors who evaluate their potential, they are less likely to get the assignments and sponsorship that are the heart of the learning cycle involved in becoming a leader.”

The Importance of Being “Adaptively Authentic”

In her HBR article, Ibarra encourages leaders to view themselves as works in progress with adaptive professional identities evolved through trial and error, acknowledging “That takes courage, because learning, by definition, starts with unnatural and often superficial behaviors that can make us feel calculating instead of genuine and spontaneous. But the only way to avoid being pigeonholed and ultimately become better leaders is to do the things that a rigidly authentic sense of self would keep us from doing.”

This takes more courage for women, because it can lead to a catch-22 as Ibarra shared with us, “When women are authentic, leading in less prototypical ways — crafting a vision collaboratively, for example, rather than boldly asserting a new direction — their contribution and potential is more likely to go unrecognized. But ‘chameleon’ strategies, that involve emulating the leadership styles of successful role models – as men are more apt to do – are less effective and less appealing to women in male-dominated leadership companies: they are evaluated negatively if they appear to be ‘acting like men’ and the styles that work for men are less likely to be a good fit for and appealing to them.”

In HBR, Ibarra proposes being “adaptively authentic”, a leadership approach that comes from embracing a playful attitude to identity rather than a protective one, a willingness to try out possible selves to figure out what’s right for new challenges.

Ibarra shared two thoughts with us for women under biased pressure to prove themselves as leaders, “First, often time you can play around with different ways of being in your side projects and extra curricular activities first, where the spotlight isn’t so bright. Second, you can’t underestimate the risk of doing just as you always have. At different points in your career you reach inflection points where the only way to ‘prove yourself’ is to just try new stuff because the old way clearly isn’t working.”

In HBR, she argues that being too internally focused can limit us, “Without the benefit of what I call out-sight — the valuable external perspective we get from experimenting with new leadership behaviors — habitual patterns of thought and action fence us in. To begin thinking like leaders, we must first act: plunge ourselves into new projects and activities, interact with very different kinds of people, and experiment with new ways of getting things done…Action changes who we are and what we believe is worth doing.”

Women and Adapting to Influence

Ibarra shared perspective on how women can influence leadership as they adapt to become better leaders, “Christine Lagarde (Managing Director of the IMF) has a lovely phrase for women: she says you have to ‘dare the difference,’ meaning dare to be different, to bring to your company your unique gifts, values and perspective as a woman and an individual. I can’t agree more.”

“But,” she cautions, “that doesn’t mean you don’t adapt to essential ‘leadership demands’ to think more strategically beyond your narrow area of expertise, to develop a full arsenal for selling your ideas to the people who have to buy in to make them reality, and to stretch your style so that you can inspire and persuade a more diverse audience. Being authentic doesn’t mean you just say ‘It’s not me to go out on a limb;’ it means you experiment until you find new ways of leading that work and also feel authentic.”

/by