Tag Archive for: career advice

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

She Hates You After You Confronted Her – Now What?

Guest contribution by Beate Chelette

It happens to even the best communicators, especially when we are having that kind of day. One thing pushes us to the edge of our tolerance and the voice inside our head says, “You have to confront her about this.” And we do—with disastrous consequences.

The calm yet firm conversation we had intended somehow turned into a much bigger issue than the one we had before. Now she is avoiding you, working around you, and giving you the cold shoulder. The problem is that she may be your boss or a key person within the company. You have a nagging suspicion your confrontation was bad for your career and may have just turned your office life into living hell.

When someone rubs us the wrong way and we want to let them know it, chances are we’ve made judgments based on our PERCEPTIONS of that person or the situation. We don’t know what she (or he) really thinks, feels, or is going through. Perhaps she is dealing with excruciating personal pain. Everyone has a story.

Direct confrontations usually don’t fix anything because they follow the outdated “I win, you lose” model. We are living in a collaborative, communal environment (compared to when gurus where all the rage) and we need to shift our approach.

The key to dissolving the issues you are facing is to identify where the problems lie. In 90% of cases, miscommunication and drawing incorrect conclusions are the root causes. Start by detaching yourself from the situation and look at the issue/problem/incident objectively. Switch the language you use from “you did/I think” to “when that happened/that incident was.”

It’s important to know your desired outcome before you go into fixing mode. Do you want to have a better relationship with your co-worker? Do you want to improve team collaboration, office communication, or work processes? Your primary goal will be the focus of what you say.

Clarifying miscommunications is how we start to repair a strained relationship. It’s also where we apply the first Pillar of The Women’s Code—awareness.

Awareness

Our perceptions are often based on assumptions. Have you ever been furious at someone for what she did to you, only to find out later that she was genuinely trying to help? That’s what happens when we act without knowing the other side of the story. Ask yourself, “What is the real issue here? Was I right to confront her? Did I act on facts or did I act on assumptions?”

Now what?

We start by offering a genuine apology. “I am sorry I…confronted you; called you out in front of the group; made a snarky comment; wrote the one-sided email; acted without understanding where you are coming from and without hearing your story first…”

We try to improve communications. Do this by giving a compliment. Trust me on this—it works wonders! The caveat is that it MUST be sincere or else we come across as fake. Try a simple compliment like: “I admire how fiercely you negotiate; I like how professionally you dress; I appreciate how you lead meetings…”

Most of the time when we give, we get something back. Watch for the sign. If you get a compliment or a nicety in return, you can skip the next step.

If we don’t receive a signal of truce, we’ll need to do more softening. Make the incident impersonal while still taking responsibility. “When the confrontation happened, I don’t know what got into me. I realize it was not appropriate.” Or simply say, “I wanted to make things better, not worse, but my approach backfired. I don’t want the tension between us to continue.” The key here is to take full responsibility for your part. After all, nobody is perfect. Keep it clear and concise, remain apologetic, admit making a mistake, and above all—be honest and genuine.

Our final step is to focus on the future. Don’t allow the conversation to dive deeply into an explanation of the mistake you made. Instead, guide the conversation by painting a picture of what is next. “What can I do to fix this situation? I’d love to hear your ideas on how to avoid this in the future. Would it be helpful if we plan to meet more often or have a daily check-in? What kind of updates would you like from me? I want to make this work…”

We all make mistakes, so we may as do something useful with them. Don’t feed a situation more negative energy. Seek ways to reconcile and resolve the issue as soon as possible. And please share what you learn so others can avoid similar pitfalls.

Let me know how these suggestions help you. I’d love to hear your tips for mending strained relationships!

At her lowest point, Beate Chelette was $135,000 in debt, a single mother, and forced to leave her home. Only 18 months later, she sold her image licensing business to Bill Gates in a multimillion-dollar deal. Today she is a respected speaker, career coach, consummate entrepreneur, Author of Happy Woman Happy World, and founder of The Women’s Code, a unique guide to leadership, and personal and career success that offers a new code of conduct for today’s business, private and digital world.  Determined to build a community of women helping each other, she took her formula and turned her life around into a book Brian Tracy calls “an amazing handbook for every woman who wants health, happiness, love and success!” She spends her time helping people and companies transform leadership and success, sharing her foolproof fix “From Overwhelmed to Awesome.”

Guest advice and opinions not necessarily those of theglasshammer.com

/by

Career Tip of the Week

,
Nicki GilmourThis Week’s Tip Is…

Know your bottom line. On Everything. Where are your boundaries?

Last week we talked about “Everyday Negotiations” in Career Tip of the week. What is your bottom line? What is acceptable and what is out of the question?. Know this ahead of every meeting!

Welcome to Career Tip of the Week. In this column we aim to provide you with a useful snippet of advice to carry with you all week as you navigate the day to day path in your career.

By Nicki Gilmour, Executive Coach and Organizational Psychologist

/by

The revolving door in the boardroom – Why men beget men

Observing gender diversity progress at top executive levels and in the Fortune 1000 boardroom is like watching an uncommitted jogger – we’re moving in the right direction, but where’s the pace?

INSEAD’s Van Der Hyden commented that reaching “historic highs” of 4.8% female Fortune 500 CEOs isn’t exactly impressive as it’s touted: “A more accurate statement is that when one starts at (or near) zero any positive change is (almost) infinite progress.”

In a recent article, Van Der Hyden points out that “the barriers (behaviors, labels, biases…) that prohibit the progression of women to the top are deep-rooted, pernicious, and ubiquitous… and much more prevalent than we imagine and recognise.”

These include serious pay disparities on top jobs, traditional-values skewed decision making, limiting perceptions around career path, women being mentored more but sponsored less than men, for a few.

Our founder and CEO Nicki Gilmour summed up 2014 boardroom figures as “Groundhog Day”: 17.7% of board positions are held by women in the Fortune 1000, a gain of 90 board seats during 2014. The US trails Europe in female board representation in S&P companies.

A recent study shows that the reason we may feel like we’re running in circles is that the boardroom has a revolving door.

“Running in Place”

A recent study entitled “Progress on gender diversity for corporate boards: Are we running in place?” analysed field data from more than 3000 companies across 9 years and found that voluntary gender equality efforts are hampered by a tendency towards gender matching – the tendency to pick a female board member when a female board member leaves and a male board member when a male board member leaves.

This is an obvious equation for perpetuating the status quo that the researchers point out could seriously undermine voluntary goals to build gender equality over time.

“The predominance of male directors results in a self-perpetuating outcome,” the researchers wrote. “The more women on the board, the better the chance they will further increase their representation, but these estimates suggest that it is a slow process, and not a gender-neutral one.”

The researchers conducted laboratory studies to understand the field evidence, and it revealed that the gender matching dynamic operates underneath stated and articulated thought processes. Participants judge gender as an insignificant factor when directly asked about it and give different reasons for their selections. “Yet, when controlling for these other reasons,” the researchers reported, “the gender of the departing candidate still plays a powerful role of determining the gender of the candidate selected.”

The researchers also found that talking about the importance of diversity did not increase the chances a woman candidate would be selected to replace a departing male executive. What did help was increasing the ratio of women in the candidate pool, but still a strong gender-matching effect remained.

In other words, banging the diversity drum doesn’t change boardroom composition towards greater gender equality.

Changing boardroom composition does.

The researchers report, “Our results suggest that the glacial pace at which women’s participation on boards is increasing may stem from a sub-conscious heuristic that guides people’s decisions towards using the gender of the departing director as a cue to the appropriate choice of a replacement…valuing diversity may not be sufficient to increase boardroom gender diversity.”

Getting Real about Results

Quotas, which can attract highly qualified applicants, are incredibly controversial but a more restrictive word for women is status quo. We can talk our way around diversity all day, and still not hit on the unconscious and ingrained dynamics that are at play even after everybody walks away from the table nodding their head, and indeed, while at it.

Researchers struggle to see how gender equality will show any real progression at a voluntary rate without public targets. Legislation and mandatory quotas are not generally favored in the USA environment. However, some non-quota initiatives recommended to improve boardroom diversity include “short-term goal setting, targeting, and disclosure, and a long-term focus on increasing the pipeline of qualified female board candidates.”

While women-led campaigns can push for results, getting more highly qualified at executive levels and in the boardroom comes down to companies delivering by taking up those initiatives with commitment, which poses a question.

What else are corporations truly committed to achieving that they do not set tangible, measurable, and reported targets for? And if they don’t set targets, are they committed?

By Aimee Hansen

/by

Career Tip of the Week

Nicki-Gilmour-bio

This Week’s Tip Is…

Negotiating isn’t just that once a year pay discussion and it is not just about money.

Read “Everyday Negotiations” by Deborah Kolb and Judith Williams to understand the power dynamics of everyday at the office.

Welcome to Career Tip of the Week. In this column we aim to provide you with a useful snippet of advice to carry with you all week as you navigate the day to day path in your career

By Nicki Gilmour, Executive Coach and Organizational Psychologist

/by

Reckoning with Institutional Double Standards on International Women’s Day

,

IWDBy Melissa J. Anderson (New York City)

What is it that keeps women from ascending to executive levels in business in numbers comparable to men? It’s not for lack of commitment or ambition. It’s not a matter of skill level or about being “tough enough.” It’s not even about negative perceptions on women’s ability to turn a profit.

What it is, is bias. It’s a culture created by men and women that offers men greater opportunities to succeed, while holding women to higher standards. And now, finally, the American public is actually coming to terms with the double-standards keeping women out of leadership roles. In fact, in a recent Pew survey, the majority of respondents acknowledged that women do, in fact, face a tougher road to the top, even today.

“Americans widely believe that men have a better shot at leadership positions in business and politics, even as majorities say that men and women make equally good leaders,” the Pew report states.

In the survey, majorities (including both women and men) agreed that there aren’t many women in executive leadership because companies simply aren’t ready to hire women leaders. It was also recognized that it is because women are held to higher standards than men. Yet, respondents also said women would do just as good a job as men.

The Pew study illuminates a point of view The Glass Hammer has supported for many years. That is: women are not the ones who need changing. The reason women are not advancing into senior leadership roles in greater numbers is because they are locked out by institutional, systemic biases that favor men over women implicitly.

Yet, this runs contrary to so much of the professional advice offered to women – to do more of this or less of that, to behave more in one way or another. Lean in, lean out, be nice, be tough, always wear heels, never let them see you cry. These pieces of advice may work for some women or they may not. Many women may find power or inspiration there, while others may find them empty promises. But they will not fix the problem that persists to this day, that the corporate world is set up to give the benefit of the doubt to men over women every time when it comes to promotion and advancement.

As of January, there were only 26 female Fortune 500 CEOs, according to Pew. And it’s taken 20 years to reach that puny five percent threshold. This year’s International Women’s Day theme is “Empowering Women, Empowering Humanity: Picture it!” At this rate, what will the picture of women in leadership be in another twenty years? Is ten percent good enough?

We, as a culture, can do vastly more for women and we should. It will take work by all of us, though, and real acknowledgment from powerful business leaders – both male and female – that double standards are keeping talented, driven women from succeeding. Change starts at the top but is lived by everyone.

Double Standards by the Numbers

Looking at Pew’s numbers, it’s clear that the majority of respondents – a sample of almost 3,000 US adults – agree that women face double standards in the workplace.

Two-thirds of respondents (67 percent) said the reason there aren’t many women running major corporations is that many businesses just “aren’t ready” for to hire women for top jobs. Two in five (43 percent) said this was a “major” reason there weren’t more women in executive positions while 24 percent cited it as a “minor” reason.

Almost the same share (65 percent) of respondents said that women have to “do more to prove themselves,” and the “major” and “minor breakdowns were almost identical.
In comparison, 58 percent of respondents said they believe women’s responsibilities to their families don’t leave much time for executive leadership, with a quarter (23 percent) designating this is a “major” factor that there aren’t more women running companies, while 35 percent cited it as a “minor” factor.

Respondents were also asked to compare whether men or women are more suited toward certain characteristics. A third (34 percent) said women were better at “working out compromises,” while only 9 percent said men were better at that task. Over half (55 percent) said there was no difference between the genders here. Similarly, 31 percent said women were better at being “honest and ethical,” while three percent said men were, and 64 percent said there was no difference between the genders. Three quarters of respondents said there was no difference between the genders when it came to “negotiating deals,” while 18 percent said men were better suited to this task then women, and seven percent said women were better suited to it.

Finally, a third (34%) said men were better at being willing to take risks than women, while five percent said women were better than men at taking risks, and 58 percent said there was no difference between men and women here.

Indeed, men’s propensity for risky behavior has been studied, lauded, condemned, and questioned in equal measure.
Perhaps its time for men, who make up the vast majority of senior business leaders, to take a risk and openly support the advancement of women, by using their influence to challenge unfair workplace institutions and gender biases.

/by

Career Tip of the Week!

Nicki-Gilmour-bioThis Week’s Tip Is…

Know your individual needs and values.

Everyone is different. Understand what makes you tick ( and by working with a coach who can work with you/ run psychometric instruments to help you know more about yourself) you can see which types of organizational cultures will best support your needs. Is it about that free coffee in the morning for you or are you wanting to get in and out and need flexibility to do so? These things matter, despite seeming small.

Welcome to Career Tip of the Week. In this column we aim to provide you with a useful snippet of advice to carry with you all week as you navigate the day to day path in your career.

By Nicki Gilmour, Executive Coach and Organizational Psychologist

/by