Red Lantern Group, LLC

Is Your Focus Drawn Too Narrowly?

2010-08-05T10:02:00.009-05:00

One of the things we’ve been working on in Jeff Garrison’s Sales Habitudes class is focusing our message/brand. Although I was the stereotypical “goody two-shoes” student in high school (it’s true – I won the Teacher’s Pet award my senior year), I sense that I occasionally frustrate Mr. Garrison! All this sales stuff is new to me. After all, my undergrad is in elementary education (you don’t have to “market” to students – they are required to attend school), and my advanced degree is law (in Iowa, advertising is severely restricted, so sales/marketing is not something they teach in law school). I’ve also struggled because I spent two years listening to what other people thought I should do, which does not result in clarity or success.

But this post is not about “finding yourself.” It’s about how narrowly you should draw your focus when the issues are so interconnected that you cannot easily pull them apart and focus on only one.

I described my business to Jeff as a (modified) three-legged stool (see below). The “seat,” or overall goal of my business is to create strong women. The three legs to that stool are Legal, Work and Financial. Legal can include family law and/or employment law (domestic violence, unfortunately, can spill over into both areas). Work includes leadership issues, as well as reentry/retention concerns. And Financial includes both increasing literacy and creating and implementing a plan.

I told Jeff that because all three of these areas (legal, work and financial) were highly interrelated, it was difficult to narrowly focus on only one area and be effective. Keep in mind, I’m not looking to represent clients in legal matters; instead, I want to educate women in each of these areas so that they can become strong and self-sufficient. I don’t want women to have to rely upon a man to take care of them financially. If they are going through a divorce or a sexual harassment lawsuit, I want them to know what to expect, so they don’t get blind-sided. And if they are trying to work both inside and outside the home, I want them to have strategies to present to their employer that will make them more productive and less stressed in both arenas.

These issues often have a domino effect for women. For example, a woman who has stayed home to raise the children may have a difficult time finding work if she divorces. If she is awarded physical care of the children, finding work that is compatible with being a single mom can be even more difficult. This obviously impacts her financial well-being, especially if she then has trouble collecting child support.

Although it’s true that men can have some of the same issues, both the dynamics and the impact may be very different. Many more women than men stay home to care for children or elderly parents. Men are still paid more than women for comparable work, and men still hold significantly more positions of leadership. Women are overwhelmingly the “victims” of domestic violence. And so it goes.

To Jeff’s credit, once I explained that I needed to “focus” on all three areas, because they were so interconnected, he understood, and worked with me to develop strategies to make that work. He understood that my passion was in helping raise up women – not bring down men. Gender balanced leadership create more successful businesses, all else being equal. Healthy relationships require that both partners contribute positively to the relationship. And helping women develop financial literacy and create a strong financial plan, whether within a business, a relationship or just for herself, is good for everyone.

Sometimes focus needs to be narrowly drawn to be successful. But sometimes drawing it too narrowly can limit your opportunities to truly serve your client.

Activist? Victims? More Language Issues

2010-07-23T08:36:00.003-05:00

Last week I wrote about language, specifically the language of everyday sexism. Because I’m an attorney, language is very important to me. There is a big difference, for example, in “may” and “shall” in a statute. This attention to language naturally spills over into other areas of my work.

I am taking a sales class (which I would highly recommend, by the way), and was working on the brand piece; specifically, determining what my focus is. I explained to the group that I work with gender issues, specifically those related to work. I prefer to work with individuals/groups, as opposed to corporations, although I would be happy to work with groups within organizations. And I'm not excluding work with corporations - it would just have to be the right fit. Finally, I want to do my work through speaking/presenting (whether keynote, lunch and learns, smaller groups, etc.), writing or facilitated discussion groups.

A very productive discussion ensued, but then came the interesting language issues. It was recommended that I either decide whether I wanted to be an “activist” and work with individuals who were “victims" or as a consultant with corporations. There were several things I found interesting about this. First, my studies about gender differences in work note that men typically define success at work in terms of money and power. Women, although obviously wanting to be paid appropriately, tend to focus more on making a difference, working with highly qualified colleagues and developing a quality product/service. It felt like the men in the group were making an implied assumption that working with corporations was a better choice because it would pay better. And although it may be true that it would pay better, what if that's not my primary focus?

Why do I think they were making that assumption? Because of their choice of language. Although Merriam-Webster defines activism as “a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue,” the term activist has, at least for me, a negative connotation. “Vigorous action” suggests to me protesters marching in the street, or handcuffing themselves to trees (really not my style!). And although I know that “women’s issues” can sometimes create controversy, I always wonder why. For example, aren’t better business returns good for everyone? So why is it controversial to recommend that there be more women at the top? Can we all agree that husbands beating or killing their wives is a bad thing? Then why is it controversial to remove a batterer’s weapons when he's been convicted of battering and has had an opportunity to be heard?

And what about that highly-charged word, “victims”? Merriam-Webster offers a number of definitions, but one definition states that a victim is “one that is subjected to oppression, hardship or mistreatment.” Although that certainly describes the experience that many women, myself included, have had in the workplace, I am not ready to label myself a victim. To me, victim suggests that someone has weakened me by taking something from me. But I prefer to live by the philosophy of, “That which does not kill us makes us stronger.” I am not willing to say that 50% of the population are victims, weakened by the other 50%.

At first, this discussion made me angry. However, that in turn, made me really think about what it was I wanted to accomplish. And this led to my brand statement and my mission.

I help create strong women.

The "Language" of Sexism

2010-07-10T10:02:00.005-05:00

Recently, I followed a Twitter link to a collection of “vintage” print ads. These ads were full of such gems as, “The Chef [a mixer] does everything but cook – that’s what wives are for!” and “Most men ask ‘Is she pretty?’ not ‘Is she clever?’” and “Is a wife to blame if she doesn’t know these intimate physical facts? Yes! She’s decidedly to blame!”

Now, granted, these ads are from the ‘50s, and it would be highly unlikely for any ad agency to even come close to this level of blatant sexism. There are those who note that although we don’t see this particular type of sexism anymore, there are plenty of examples of a different kind of sexism in the media today. The photo below is from the Women’s Interest section of the magazine rack of a popular book store. Apparently the primary goals for us are to please our men (top row), lose weight and get married. Then we can move to the section that has all the family, home and garden magazines. Now, I like to look great and shop as much as the next person, and I am married and have children (but would never claim to have a green thumb!). But that is not, by far, all of who I am. Where are the magazines targeting women that focus on business, politics and finance?

But I digress.

The images presented to us on the covers of magazines more often than not show women in bikinis or sexy dresses. But what about language? Obviously, they are going to pretty much track the images. One headline promises to tell us the “12 Little Things Every Guy Wants in Bed.” Another will enlighten us as to the “Must-have shoes, bags & more.” And, of course, we will be instructed as to how to “Speak His Sex Language.”

But that’s the media. What about our own language?

The other day, I read a Facebook post by a man who had an unfortunate “run-in” with a woman he did not know. He was injured, but she did not stop to help him. His Facebook post began with random letters indicating swearing, but he went on to call her a “whore” and a “skank.” Now, I understand he was angry, and certainly he had a right to be. But I called him out on the “anti-female” language, asking him if perhaps he didn’t think it was a bit harsh. His response was, “Sorry for the language but to lump all females into one category is a little unfair. She deserves the language I used. I'm not anti-female tho :-) [sic].”

Did she deserve that kind of language? What if she didn’t know she had hurt him? What if she did? If you’re a woman, does injuring someone (whether intentionally or unintentionally) make you a whore or a skank? What if you’re a man? Are you still a whore or a skank? And are the male “equivalents” (if there is such a thing) as harsh as whore and skank? Do you agree with him that I was the one unfairly lumping all women together?

Keep in mind I did not say he was anti-female, just that his language was. Do you find it interesting that he had to reassure me that he was not anti-female, even though I did not make that statement?

I’d love to hear your thoughts, but please – keep it civil and no verbal attacks on either me or the individual making the statement. My point is not to attack, but rather to make people aware of how their choice of language may send a message they are not intending to send.

Common Sense

2010-07-07T14:49:00.005-05:00

Despite being an avid learner, I rarely have “ah, hah” moments. Certainly I learn things that make me think, “Hey, that’s interesting,” but few that rise to the true level of “ah, hah.” However, last night I was thinking about a variety of experiences I have had recently, and did have one of those moments.

I am a huge advocate of common sense. But my “ah, hah” moment was figuring out that there are really two types of common sense. The first type is the kind that every adult should possess. The kind that says, “just because your 14-year-old daughter wants to “quit” the family vacation doesn’t mean you let her be driven home by a trucker you meet at a truck stop.” That kind of common sense should not have to be taught to adults. The second kind of common sense comes about only after some basic education. And that’s the kind of common sense I’m developing lately in multiple arenas.

Yesterday, I began Jeff Garrison’s Sales Habitudes Practice Group. Even after just the first session, I can see things that are common sense if you have basic information about how people learn, how they sell, and how they buy.

I’m increasing my financial literacy with the help of Dan Durant, of Financial Architects, and am discovering that although financial planning is not rocket science, “common sense” in this area requires a certain amount of knowledge (as well as learning the lingo).

My company, Red Lantern Group, LLC, involves issues that I consider common sense. On closer examination, however, it is clear that this is common sense based upon the knowledge I have gained from a variety of sources. Some of this “common sense” is:

• It makes sense to me to hire more women in executive roles because I know that companies that have gender balance at the top perform better on virtually every financial indicator. Although intuitively it would seem to make sense, this is actually research based as well. (Women in Leadership Roles: From Politically Correct to Competitive Advantage, by Anne Perschel of Germane Consulting)

• It makes sense to me to bring women back into the workplace after they “step out,” whether they step out to raise children, care for elderly parents, volunteer or any other reason. These women possess a wealth of experience and expertise that is not being fully utilized; they can ramp up faster than a new graduate, and bring a broader perspective and willingness to work hard. (Off-Ramps and On-Ramps, by Sylvia Hewlett)

• It makes sense for companies to do what they can to prevent domestic violence, because it has a significant impact on their bottom line in terms of absenteeism, lost productivity and potential safety/liability issues. (The Workplace Responds to Domestic Violence: A Resource Guide for Employees, Unions and Advocates, a project of the Family Violence Prevention Fund)

• It makes sense to me for women to be in political leadership. They have the education, the work experience and the volunteer and home experience. It is typically a more holistic approach. (See generally The White House Project)

When people know the basic facts upon which everything else is based, whether it’s in the area of sales, financial planning or leadership development, things become more common sense. When things make sense, individuals and companies can begin to make changes that will eventually become good habits. And as Jeff Garrison will tell you, that’s when things really click and progress can be made.

Fathers Matter, Too

2010-07-01T09:06:00.003-05:00

This week, I attended a day and a half of Continuing Legal Education (“CLE”) entitled, Fathers Matter, Too. The focus was on bringing Dads to the table more often, particularly when their kids are involved in the juvenile court system. Speakers from the National Fatherhood Initiative spoke on the Value of Fathers and Engaging Fathers in the Process, while Dr. Leo Mesa, Jr. addressed the Fundamentals of Domestic Violence. Most of the attendees were social workers, so it was interesting to watch from an attorney perspective. A few observations:

• There is a “concern” that when children are removed from the home, services are offered to Mom, but not Dad. Further, reunification efforts are focused on Mom, but Dad is not considered. Services include the expected things like parenting classes, therapy, etc., but may also include sessions on resume preparation. Although these are valid concerns, they came about because of the reality at the time they were developed. For example, when men were the primary breadwinners and women stayed home with the children, it was the women that needed the resume-writing assistance, because they had been out of the workforce. Men didn’t necessarily need that, because they were and had been working.

• During the discussion on domestic violence, there was a discussion regarding how some men who abuse women “objectify” them (e.g., “my wife,” used in reference to her as property, rather than identification). It was interesting to hear someone say, “Men who objectify women do not think of them as something of value. . .” My immediate thought was, I never think of women as some “thing.” On a positive note, when I relayed the story to my 20-year-old daughter, I merely told her what was said, and she immediately said, “Something?”

• The focus of the seminar was to figure out ways to get more fathers involved in their children’s lives. However, at one point, one of the social workers pointed out that not all men wanted custody of their kids, or go to their conferences, etc. They might just want visitation. And my thought was, “Tough. What if both parents said that all they wanted was visitation? Why do we “allow” dads to choose to just have visitation, and not otherwise participate in their children’s lives? Those are the “Disneyland Dads” – they want all the fun with none of the responsibility.

• One of the things suggested to get more fathers involved in programming designed to make them better dads was to make it convenient. One woman suggested that if fathers were truly committed to their children, it wouldn’t matter if it was convenient – they would do whatever it took. Someone else pointed out that not every employer was family friendly, so it was hard for men to take time off. I reminded them that this was not a gender issue; when women take time off, they are considered “not serious” about their careers. The first woman also asked about the Family Medical Leave Act. However, not everyone is eligible for FMLA; FMLA is usually unpaid; and FMLA is for serious medical issues, not things like your kids’ conferences or sporting events.

• The question was posed, “Can batterers be good dads?” The answer given was a “yes, but.” Yes, but only if they stop battering Mom. My personal bias is in alignment with the second half of that statement. Dad cannot be a good dad if he is beating or otherwise abusing the mother of his children, because of the trauma domestic abuse can cause those children. I don’t care what else he is doing right – if he is abusing Mom, he is not a good Dad. Period.

After years of representing women in situations where they were abused, harassed or discriminated against, after working with children who are abused, neglected and abandoned, I confess that I have perhaps less patience with men than some of the other attendees. Yes, I know there are reasons why men batter, why they abandon their children, and why they are disengaged. Yes, I know it is not always the man’s fault that they do not have as much contact with their kids as they might like. However, at a certain point, men need to take responsibility for their lives and those of their children. They need to stop battering women and start participating in a positive way in their kids’ lives. And I am not too inclined to wait forever for them to change; in these situations, hope does not spring eternal for me. The rate of recidivism for batterers is astounding, particularly if they do not go through a good batterer’s education program. Dr. Mesa told a story of a man who was referred to, and attended a batterer’s program three different times before he finally decided to change. Will he? Forever? Hard to say.

When kids are involved, I am not willing to give too many “second chances,” because it’s too damaging for the kids. The courts agree – in Iowa, parents have about a year to get their act together or their parental rights are terminated. It’s more important to give the kids a chance at stability and success than it is to try to change the parents.

So go to the web-site and see the great work the Fatherhood Initiative is doing. But also remember that dads bear at least some of the responsibility to get involved in their kids’ lives in a positive, nurturing way.

Is It Really the End of Men?

2010-06-25T09:46:00.002-05:00

In the July/August 2010 issue of The Atlantic, Hanna Rosin poses a provocative questions – “What if equality isn't the end point? What if modern, postindustrial society is simply better suited to women?” To support this, she provides several statements, among them:

Earlier this year, women became the majority of the workforce for the first time in history
Most managers are now women; and
For every two men that get a college degree, three women will do the same.

Despite the title, the article is not about male-bashing. Rather, Rosin posits that the skills necessary to succeed in the post-industrial society are skills that have typically been associated with women. She notes that, “[a]s thinking and communicating have come to eclipse physical strength and stamina as the keys to economic success, those societies that take advantage of the talents of all their adults, not just half of them, have pulled away from the rest.” (emphasis added).

This willingness to include women, resulting in improved financial indicators and better governance, has been confirmed in other studies (See prior posts). And while noting that there is still a dearth of women at the very top, Rosin notes that this, too, may be changing. In fact, according to a recent report in Bloomberg news, women who head the nation's largest companies are earning substantially more than their male counterparts. And Joel Garreau, author of Edge City, observes that suburban office parks became popular because companies looking for the “best educated, most conscientious, most stable workers” found the best candidates in “underemployed females living in middle-class communities on the fringe of the old urban areas.”

So what does all this mean? Is it the beginning of the end for men? Well, probably not, but on the other hand, changes in leadership, the workforce and work environments will require men to adapt. Women have been forced to adapt to men’s work and career paths for years. Sometimes this has been a matter of survival (their own, or that of their children), and sometimes it’s been simply so they could have better jobs. If they wanted the jobs that paid better or were perhaps more interesting, they had to play by the rules already in place.
Men, on the other hand, have traditionally shied away from what has been deemed “women’s work,” and have had no real incentive to “adapt” to the lower paying careers.

Women are moving up (the corporate ladder), they are moving in (to elected positions) and moving on (owning their own businesses when they are denied positions, promotions or are flat out ignored). In an introduction to Enlightened Power: How Women Are Transforming the Practice of Leadership, David Gergen writes, “[w]omen are knocking on the door of leadership at the very moment when their talents are especially well matched with the requirements of the day.” Further, traditional “command and control” leadership, which tends to be more male-based, is being replaced by more collaborative, transformational leadership, which utilizes skills typically attributed to women.

Although I do not believe it’s the end of men, I do believe it’s the beginning of the end of excluding women. Women are no longer willing to stand by while male-dominated firms of financial “gurus” push us into another Great Recession. Women no longer want to hear men tell them that instead of taking guns away from abusers, women should take a self-defense class instead. Women no longer want male-run oil companies to drill for oil without adequate safeguards in place to either prevent or stop environmentally crippling oil spills.
Women want accountability, responsibility and collaboration, whether in the corporate office or on Capitol Hill.

And speaking of Capitol Hill, women have recently been elected to public office in record numbers. Women who have been mercilessly attacked (think Nikki Haley, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton) and women with no party backing (Elaine Marshall). Republicans and Democrats, those with and without experience. Organizations like The White House Project, The New Agenda and the 50/50 in 2020 project are focused on getting more women elected to public office.

So run, women, run (for public office).

Lead, women, lead (in the corporate world).

Create, solve, stand up, speak out and make your life count.

It’s time.

Retraction or Clarification?

2010-06-18T10:57:00.003-05:00

There are first times for everything, I guess. Today is the first time I’ve had to post a – well, not a retraction, exactly. The person did and said exactly what I said he did and said; but it is possible I misinterpreted his words and actions.

Let me explain.

Last week, I posted a segment talking about the different responses between men and women to my business. I work on the problem of getting professional women back into the workforce after they have stepped out (for whatever reason), as well as getting more women into leadership roles. I also work with companies to tap this incredible pool of talent by making work paths more amenable to how women work. I don’t simply suggest they do this because it’s the “right” thing to do, but also because it makes great business sense. I noted in my previous post that women intuitively “got it,” but men – well, not that they didn’t understand it intellectually, but rather they didn’t have the "experiential" understanding, because they likely had not ever been in many of those situations. I wrote that, while talking to men about my business, “[a] third [man] said he felt “emaciated” and suddenly had to take a phone call!” That was true - he did say that, and he did abruptly take a phone call and leave.

However, last night, my husband ran into this same man, who told him that he “loved” my business, thought it was a great idea and that it would really do well. He told my husband specific things that he liked about it, and was, according to my husband, quite sincere. So I’m not sure whether I completely misinterpreted his words and actions, whether he left and thought about what I was saying and changed his mind/opinion, or some combination of the two. In any event, if it’s the first, I apologize. If it’s the second, then I get an “atta girl”!

It does tell me, though, that women and men, are beginning to talk about the topic, recognize both the problems and the opportunities, and trying to figure out solutions. That's a win-win for everyone.

Do Businesses STILL Not Get It?

2010-06-14T09:55:00.003-05:00

While writing the previous posts, I had conversations with various people about information contained in the post, as well as the work I do generally around women’s issues (especially work-related and leadership issues). The gender differences were quite interesting. Women, as you might expect, “got” the struggles women face in the workplace. They understood how difficult managing work and home could be, and the different priorities women may have in seeking the best work position/environment. They were, by and large, appalled at the statistics, whether they spoke to pay disparity, exclusion at the upper levels of leadership or career “drop-out.”

One woman (CEO of a large, well-established non-profit) told me that she knew her male counterpart was paid more, with a smaller territory. I introduced myself to a woman at a local coffee shop who is a sales representative for a major pharmaceutical company. As soon as I told her what I did, she could hardly contain her anger, raging at the company that always chose rich sports figures for their “motivational” speakers. She verbalized something I’ve always said – when there are women in your audience, you may want to lose the sports analogies (football and baseball, in particular). Not because women “can’t understand” those analogies, or don’t like sports, but because we’re not “allowed” to play some of those sports at the professional level. A third woman spoke of being bullied by the men on her committee when she wouldn’t “toe the party line,” and instead demanded accountability.

Men, on the other hand, did not seem concerned about the challenges women face, and didn’t really seem bothered by the statistics. One man suggested that rather than focusing on getting more women into executive positions, I talk about succession planning generally (which is a very different thing, and sucked the very life out of the passion I felt for the project). Another asked what the “value proposition” was (a good question, I’m sure, but one which the women I spoke with intuitively understood). A third said he felt “emaciated” and suddenly had to take a phone call!

The interesting thing about this was that all of these men are men I like and respect. They are intelligent and sensitive to diversity issues. Keep in mind, too, that I was not advocating women “taking over” and running men out on a rail. I was merely pointing out that women are grossly underrepresented in top positions, despite having the credentials and abilities necessary to succeed in these positions. That having more women on boards and in the executive suite improves financial indicators, such as the ever-important return on equity of companies. That collaborative leadership styles (common in women leaders) has proven to be extraordinarily effective. That a balance of men and women was best for most organizations.

I have always been passionate about women’s issues, whether being shocked by reports of Bosnian rape camps, outraged at being fired because I was pregnant, or dismayed by a recent Catalyst video (dismayed because it spoke of a truth that feels, at times, overwhelming). And please don’t talk to me about the progress women have made. Yes, we have made some progress, but not nearly enough. Despite all the statistics demonstrating why it’s a good business idea to have more women on boards and in executive level positions, companies still refuse to hire/promote women. Not all companies, and not all the time, but often enough that more than 70% of the top 1,500 companies in the U.S. have no women on the senior leadership team. (Holding Women Back, Troubling Discoveries – And Best Practices for Helping Female Leaders Succeed, citing Dezso & Ross, 2008)

Despite all the statistics talking about the power women are beginning to wield as consumers and holders of both intellectual and financial wealth, businesses still routinely do not take our opinions into account when developing or marketing products.

Does that make sense to anyone?

The Paradox

2010-06-07T14:09:00.004-05:00

On September 16, 2001, and again on August 14, 2005, Wiley Miller, the cartoonist who creates Non Sequitur, produced a strip for the Sunday paper that was, unfortunately, funny. I say unfortunately, because the gist of the strip is that the boss (a white male) is incredibly impressed with a report written by one of his middle managers. He says, “Give this guy a raise and a promotion before we lose him!!” However, when the man to whom he is speaking informs him that the report was written by a woman, his eyes bug out, and he revises his position, deciding that rather than the report being “forceful and straightforward,” it instead “comes off as rather bitchy.” And instead of a promotion and raise, the woman is fired, using the “standard excuse of [the] economic downturn.”

The comic is both funny and discouraging. It is funny, because like all good humor, it contains at least a grain (if not more) of truth. It is discouraging for that same reason.

Ann Howard, Ph.D. and Richard Wellins, Ph.D, both of Development Dimensions International, conducted a study in 2008. The results of that study were presented in a report entitled Holding Women Back: Troubling Discoveries – and Best Practices for Helping Female Leaders Succeed.

Following are some of their findings:

Women’s representation in executive-level positions was half that in first-level management
More than 70% of the top 1,500 U.S. firms have no women on the senior leadership team (Dezsö & Ross, 2008)
In all major global regions, women were more likely than men to fall off the management ladder before reaching the top
Among executives, 50% more men than women are [considered] high-potentials.

These statistics are appalling standing on their own, but when looked at in conjunction with the benefits of having women in executive and/or board positions, they are absolutely baffling.

A 1998 study of S&P 500 companies found that companies with the most women and minority directors had shareholder returns that were 21 percent higher than those of companies with all white male boards.
In January 2004, Catalyst reported a link between greater gender diversity among the corporate officers of 353 companies in the Fortune 500 and better financial performance by those companies over the period 1996–2000, measured by both return on equity and total return to shareholders.
Based on their research, the authors found that the presence of women on boards has a practical as well as a symbolic effect: it changes the functioning and deliberative style of the board in clear and consistent ways that are linked to good governance, which in turn improves organizational performance over the long term.
“In addition, the authors noted that boards with two or more women directors, and even boards with only one women director, regularly reviewed non-financial performance measures such as customer satisfaction and employee satisfactions significantly more than did all-male boards.

(Toni G. Wolfman, The Face of Corporate Leadership).

So what gives? How can the results of having women at the top be so overwhelmingly positive, yet companies are still largely devoid of women at those upper levels? Why aren’t companies clamoring for, and actively recruiting these women? Or are they, and women are simply not taking advantage of these opportunities? Or is it a little of both, or something else entirely?

We’ll look at the possible answers to these questions shortly.

Why Aren't There More Women at the Top?

2010-05-27T10:00:00.003-05:00

Let’s start with some statistics. Some might question the advisability of this, but these statistics are interesting, because they do not, on their face, seem to make sense.

• Women make 85% of purchase decisions, and influence another 10%

• Women owned businesses account for 41% of privately held firms, and spend $1.5 trillion on business related products and services

• In 2010, women are expected to own 60% of the country’s financial wealth

• Women are the most highly educated segment of current and future talent base – they hold 58% of bachelor degrees, and 65% of graduate degrees. Further, there has been a 54% increase in the number of doctoral degrees earned by women over the past decade, and a 57% increase in master’s degrees.

And yet,

• “[M]ore than 70% of the top 1,500 US firms have no women on the senior leadership team,” (Holding Women Back, Troubling Discoveries – And Best Practices for Helping Female Leaders Succeed, citing Dezso & Ross, 2008). This despite the fact that “Fortune 500 companies with the most women on top leadership teams have a 35% better return on equity. . . than those with the fewest women on their leadership teams.” (Women in Leadership Roles: From Politically Correct to Competitive Advantage, citing The Bottom Line, 2004)

• “Men make up progressively larger proportions of high-potentials within each management level; among executives, 50% more men than women are [considered to be] high-potentials.” (Holding Women Back, Troubling Discoveries – And Best Practices for Helping Female Leaders Succeed)

• “The career drop-out rate for women (in the areas of science, engineering and technology) is 52% while these industries face critical talent shortages that will impede growth rates that are expected to be five times the rate of other sectors.” (Women in Leadership Roles: From Politically Correct to Competitive Advantage, citing United States Department of Labor and Statistics, 2005)

So what’s going on?

There are, of course, many theories, most of which talk about what women need to do to succeed in the workplace. However, one of the most compelling theories focuses more on what businesses need to do to utilize this vastly talented yet under-utilized pool of candidates. Sylvia Hewlitt, author of Off Ramps and On Ramps, looks at a number of things, but four of the most interesting are the following:

• Traditional (read “male”) work models tend to be fairly linear, which tracks well with men’s lives. However, women tend to have non-linear paths, making it difficult for them to “fit into” traditional workplaces.

• Once women “off-ramp,” even for as short a time as 24 months, it becomes very difficult to “on-ramp.” Even if women are able to on-ramp, they often do so at a significantly reduced salary or with significantly reduced responsibilities.

• “Opportunities” for flexibility often turn into a euphemism for “not serious about her work.”

• The reasons women work are, in some very important ways, quite different from the reasons men work.

Although women do, of course, want to be paid well, their priorities tend to be more focused on connection, flexibility and recognition. For men, it’s typically about power and money. Hewlett notes, “Women’s priorities thus constitute a sharp departure from the conventional white male model and become yet another powerful reason why success within this model is so elusive for women.” Off Ramps and On Ramps.

How can this information can help your business grow? Stay tuned!

Friends Connect! Summit - Wow!!

2010-05-04T09:58:00.003-05:00

Last Thursday evening and all day Friday, I had the pleasure of attending the Friends Connect! inaugural summit. The Friends of the Iowa Commission on the Status of Women supports the Iowa Commission on the Status of Women in its mission to serve women and girls, primarily in an advocacy/lobbying role.

What a great experience the Summit was! There was a wonderful collection of speakers, including Talia Leman (15-year-old CEO of RandomKid), Marie Wilson (founder and president of The White House Project) and Mary Stier, (founder and CEO of The Brilliance Group). Michelle Durand-Adams and her phenomenal Friends’ board did a tremendous job in creating this successful event (although I’m on the Friends’ board, I just joined in April, so really can’t take any credit in the success of the event!).

Maggie Tinsman and Jean Lloyd-Jones were in attendance. It was wonderful to hear these two veteran women politicians talk about the future of women in politics. In particular, they discussed the 50/50 in 2020 project, which is focused on equal representation (gender) in government. Lloyd-Jones also noted that despite the fact that she and former Senator Tinsman were in different political parties, they still managed to work together and get things done, a skill badly needed in today’s political climate.

When I left on Friday, I felt exhilarated. I had heard fabulous, strong women speak and share their experiences. I had received support and positive comments about my own strengths from other women who knew me. I connected to other strong women. And it reinforced my belief that, as Marie Wilson said repeatedly, now is our time as women. The “stars” (politics, economics, business, integrity, etc.) are aligning to make this a time unlike any other in history; a time extraordinarily favorable for women. Ms. Wilson warned us not to waste the opportunity, and I agree.

I am thrilled that this summit occurred at a time in my life when I am truly ready for it and the messages delivered, whether from a focused 15-year-old or strong women at the other end of the spectrum. I was inspired and motivated to move forward with my own work.

To that end, be looking for a unique opportunity Terri Deems (of WorkLife Design) and I will be offering in the near future to help move women forward, whether in their personal or professional lives. I’m very excited about this project, and hope you will be too!

Strengths and Off/On-Ramping During a Career Life

2010-04-24T11:53:00.003-05:00

I’m a huge fan of Marcus Buckingham’s work. When I read his books, my immediate reaction is, “Yes! That makes so much sense.” It’s often a feeling of recognition – something that I’ve known all along, but just didn’t realize that I knew. I also appreciate the fact that his work is research-based, rather than opinion-based.

In his latest book, Find Your Strongest Life, many things jumped out at me, but one particular group of ideas really hit home. Mr. Buckingham notes that, “Neglect [of using what truly strengthens you] is a strength-killer. . . As you feel yourself weaken, you become confused. This perpetual state of feeling overwhelmed wears you down.” I find myself in this very place. I am seeking work that allows me to use my natural strengths (whether a “job” or in my own business), but because I don’t have the “piece of paper” that certifies my ability to do a particular thing, it is difficult to get people to take a chance on me. They would rather hire someone who has the piece of paper, whether or not a particular experience is an actual strength. This has been disheartening, to say the least. It makes me question the path I am trying to take (confusion), and, as Mr. Buckingham predicts, results in a feeling of being overwhelmed that is exhausting.

Mr. Buckingham’s findings create an additional level of complexity when viewed in conjunction with Sylvia Hewlett’s work. In her book, Off-Ramps and On Ramps, Ms. Hewlett notes that women’s careers tend to be non-linear, which is not easily compatible with traditional paths to the top. Women, in much higher percentages than men, need to “off-ramp” at some point in their lives, whether to care for others (children, or, with increasing regularity, elderly parents) or for a variety of other reasons. Trying to get back on the career track can be difficult if not impossible; trying to do that while focusing on your strengths adds an additional layer of difficulty. And even if women are able to find work again, they are often forced to accept a lower salary than before, and a lower level of responsibility.

For businesses, this means a huge loss of talent, both in terms of turnover (talented women off-ramping) and failure to tap the pool when hiring (the on-ramping piece of the puzzle). Some companies, recognizing this gap in their hiring strategy (especially when viewed in conjunction with the predicted war for talent) have taken steps to actively retain and recruit these talented women. But it requires a new way of looking at things. The obvious first questions are, “What needs do women have that men typically don’t, and how can we address those needs?” However, that’s only a beginning. Other questions have to do with what motivates women, why women work, and what their priorities are. The answers to these questions are not necessarily the same for women as men, and until organizations start recognizing this, women will continue to suffer, and companies will continue to miss out on valuable talent.

Companies that recognize this vast, largely untapped pool of talent and develop ways to take advantage of these workers will benefit in a number of ways; reduced turnover (and the costs associated with turnover), increased talent, a more diverse workforce (which translates into better knowledge of consumers and their spending habits), and a more loyal workforce.

Will that be your company?

Do You REALLY Value Diversity, Or Only Some Kinds of Diversity?

2010-04-19T14:56:00.004-05:00

There’s a lot of talk about the value of diversity today, which encompasses both private and public employers. The State of Iowa, in fact, undertook a massive diversity training project for all executive branch employees last year, and I had the good fortune of being hired as one of the trainers. In the training sessions, we talked about many different types of diversity, including gender, race, age, disability and sexual orientation. Most people can see (or at least be politically correct enough to acknowledge) the benefits of this kind of diversity. Additionally, most will give lip service to the desirability of diversity of thinking, noting that different perspectives and opinions provide a richer and more inclusive solution to various problems facing businesses today. However, I’m seeing more and more intolerance for political diversity – and this is not limited to any one party.

As an example, I recently saw a posting on Facebook by an individual I consider to be a friend and colleague, although he is clearly more liberal than I am. When we talk face to face, he is respectful in how he states his position; sometimes we simply have to agree to disagree, and that’s fine. I still come away with a different perspective to consider. But in his Facebook posting, he noted that “The Tea Party has their panties in a wad because 47% of Americans don't pay Federal Income Tax (but do pay sales and payroll taxes). GE earned $10.8 BILLION in profits and paid $0.00 in taxes. Exxon has a similar situation. If you open your mouth about the 47% people who aren't on the tax rolls, be prepared to explain why you aren’t BILLIONS of times more offended by GE and Exxon.”

Setting aside for a moment whether the facts are accurate, and why those two scenarios may or may not be different, I would make two observations. First, there have been numerous articles and news reports regarding the Tea Party, with the most common theme being that they are not a group that can be easily pigeon-holed. So to say that the “tea party” thinks or believes any one thing can be a bit of a challenge.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, why use language like “has their panties in a wad” or "if you open your mouth about..."? Although he is certainly free to express himself in (almost) any way he wishes, insulting language like this does not facilitate “civil discourse.” It only makes people angry, defensive and unwilling to listen to the speaker’s point of view. The question itself (i.e., “Are you as angry at GE and Exxon as you are at the non-tax-paying Americans, and if not, why not?”) is a good one, but the “in-your-face” manner in which it is presented is probably not going to encourage productive discussion.

His choices of phrasing may also have adverse effects on his business. Although I certainly respect his expertise in his field, his decision to use language that could potentially offend clients and potential clients (who may be friends, colleagues or clients of mine) makes me a bit leery of recommending him to others.

Finally, I am surprised at his choice of language because of his dedication to diversity. His comments suggest that he is only open to diversity in areas of race, gender, etc., but not politics or even diversity of thinking. I don't necessarily believe that of him, but someone who does not know him well and just reads his post, might.

People are constantly complaining of how polarized our nation has become. Perhaps if both sides of the political spectrum (and everyone in-between) would tone down the insulting presentation of their comments, and instead ask questions with a sincere intent on learning why their opponents believe as they do, it would encourage people to work together to find common ground and solutions for the difficult problems we face.

Stalking as a Customer Service Technique

2010-04-06T11:08:00.002-05:00

Last Saturday, I had the pleasure of going shopping with my daughter. We were in one of the large department stores looking at candles, when we were approached by a sales clerk. As is typical (but probably not terribly effective), she asked if she could help us “find anything.” We told her we were just browsing. She made a comment about the candles we were looking at, which can be a good lead-in to a sale, but rather than point out the great things about that particular brand of candles, she told us that she didn’t burn “real” candles, because she had a cat and was afraid he might set his fur on fire! I confess that I had never thought of that, but I do own a cat (perhaps my cat is more intelligent than hers?), and being on a caffeine high, I made a flip comment about my cat. She laughed, and I assured her I was only kidding.

Kierra and I wandered on, only to have her talk to us again in another department, trying to get us to open a credit card (10% off today if you open an account!). She continued to "chat us up" throughout various departments until we finally left. We couldn’t look at what we wanted to look at, because she was so intent on talking to us (and no, I don’t think she was concerned that we might shoplift).

I have had other, similar experiences. Sales clerks are so intent on “helping” me pick out clothes to try on, that they end up driving me out of their store in exasperation. This has occurred even after I have told the clerk that I want to look around on my own, and assured the clerk that I will find her/him if I have any questions. I’m sure that some clerks think I’m rude, but I have found that the best way to be able to leisurely shop and look at what I want to look at is to be brief and not make eye contact when they greet me.

The pinnacle of this “stalking” occurs on the lower level of the Jordan Creek Town Center, at a kiosk selling hand lotion. The sales people stand on either side of the kiosk (no escaping them) with a tube of lotion, asking customers if they want to try some. If they customer says no, they follow up with, “Can I ask you something?” I fell for this the first time, only to learn that they wanted to ask me if my nails were “real” and if they could show me their amazing buffing stone! It’s so bad that I often avoid the lower level of that particular wing – I’m sure the other retailers would not be happy to hear that the kiosk’s sales tactics are driving away their potential customers!

Ann Taylor (the women’s clothing store), on the other hand, does a nice job of training sales clerks to recognize which customers want help and which don’t. They teach them how to greet customers (so they are acknowledged) without stalking them, and how to be helpful yet unobtrusive.

Do your associates know the difference? Do they know how to treat different customers? Or are they so intent on being friendly and helpful that they are driving your customers away?

Diversity

2010-03-08T12:48:00.003-06:00

Last month was Black History Month. I have heard some question why there’s Black History Month, but not White History Month. The obvious answer is that typically, the ones who make and record history are the ones who are powerful, famous or educated. Historically speaking, minority populations were usually not those things. Or, in the case of many women, their power or fame was inextricably linked to their husband’s status in the community. And, it’s hard to accomplish much when you cannot vote, own property or even belong to the same clubs as the white males.

Rather than dwell on the injustices to any one group, however, I would prefer to focus on diversity generally. As an employment law attorney, I represented various people in discrimination cases. Discrimination, of course, is all about exclusion, which is the opposite of diversity’s goal of inclusion. There is a lot of talk these days about creating a diverse and inclusive workplace. Often these goals are cloaked in moral values, and may or may not reflect what is actually going on in the workplace. The interesting thing, however, is that having an inclusive and diverse workplace is not just the “right” thing to do – it also makes good business sense. For example, in a study done in 2005, researchers found that “the total and average annual return on the stock of those companies with the highest gender diversity was several percentage points higher than that of the companies with the lowest gender diversity and also had less volatility or risk than those companies with fewer women.”1 These findings were echoed in a number of other studies by various companies, many of which also note that women make most of the purchasing decisions in families, they control substantial assets and investment, and they enhance corporate governance.2

While doing diversity training for the State of Iowa last fall, I talked to my participants about the benefits of having different perspectives. I would ask them questions like, “What is the benefit of having someone with a disability on your team when you are designing a new facility?” or, “What is the benefit of having someone with significant experience (i.e., older) on your team?” In other words, what perspectives do diverse populations bring to the table that will benefit the company and its customers? Interestingly, everybody knew the answers to these questions, yet it is amazing how infrequently diversity is actually cultivated in decision-making.

This applies to marketing as much as any other area of business. I once attended a workshop focused on increasing sales. One of the women, a partner in a home-building company, told of a new “line” of homes they were building that used the phrase “Red Door”. The women in the room immediately visualized a line of luxury homes, because of the Elizabeth Arden brand of salons. The man leading the group did not make that connection (for obvious reasons). In this instance, a woman’s perspective was invaluable regarding the branding and marketing of this product. Along the same lines, would Apple have named their new “gadget” the iPad if it had any women officers? What woman wants to purchase a product that makes them think “feminine hygiene product” (or what man, for that matter)? The blogosphere lit up with jokes and criticisms of the name – many asking whether any women actually worked at Apple.3 Different perspectives can help management avoid blunders when certain terms mean different things to different “target markets,” especially in terms of (slang) words/phrases or products used almost exclusively by one (sometimes very large) group.

A couple years ago, I did some consulting for a group that was launching a new product in the Midwest. When I saw the “draft” video of the proposed television advertising, I was appalled. Apparently only white women (mothers) in their 30s shopped at this particular grocery store. When I noted that there were no males, people of color, older people, etc., I was told that this was just designed to give us a rough idea of the “concept,” and that it would be fixed before the final version was released. It wasn’t. And even if it had been, why not bring in a diverse group for the draft? Companies often underestimate the impact diversity can have on its customers. And although I understand the concept of modifying your marketing so that your target market sees people that “look like them,” in order to encourage them to buy, it perpetuates the division between people who are often more alike than different.

So is Black History Month a good or bad thing? Probably both – and neither. I’m not sure whether it’s effective in encouraging diversity or division. Certainly raising awareness of contributions by various groups, whether along race, gender or other lines can be beneficial. But wouldn’t it be better to integrate this so that it is more inclusive of all groups, in a more mainstreamed way, rather than compartmentalizing various groups?

1. The Face of Corporate Leadership, Toni G. Wolfman, citing Vesela Veleva, Gender Diversity and Financial Performance, Citizens Advisers, 2005. This study is available at www.citizensfunds.com.
2. Id.
3. See http://community.pinkmagazine.com/forums/t/1736.aspx

Be Grateful in All Things

2009-11-11T13:46:00.003-06:00

My son was in an accident the other day. Fortunately, no one was hurt. However, it did total his truck, and will undoubtedly raise his insurance rates. It will cost him money for the ticket (and yes, he will be paying that ticket, not his parents). He clearly knows which of his parents is the more laid-back, however, as he chose to call my husband to report the accident. But this is not a column on being the kind of leader that people feel comfortable coming to when there’s a problem!

No, because it’s nearing Thanksgiving, this is a column about being grateful, even in difficult circumstances. First, of course, I’m grateful that neither my son nor anyone else involved in the accident was injured. Second, although his insurance rates will go up, they will apparently not go up until December 2010, our next renewal period. That’s one less year at the higher rate. Third, because there is one less vehicle on our policy, our monthly rate will actually be lower until the vehicle is replaced. Finally, our boat, which can only be towed by the truck, was delivered to my brother’s place for winter storage the week before my son’s accident!

Even when you are trying to lead a strategic life, remaining focused on the goal and the plan to get there, obstacles can (and will) crop up, causing you to get stuck or knocked off course. Looking for the “silver lining” in these unplanned clouds can help keep you moving forward. Granted, some situations are more difficult than others. But knowing that there will always be unexpected turns of events in your life, and learning to be grateful in any situation (or at the very least, being able to find a lesson to be learned) will help you weather the storms that come your way, whether they are small rain storms or all out hurricanes.

Be thankful – in all things.

What Do I Want, Anyway?

2009-10-28T10:59:00.002-05:00

In strategic life planning, the first step is creating the vision. But for some people (myself included), that can be the most difficult aspect. Assessments such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, the Clifton Strengthsfinder Assessment and various interest inventories can be good starting points in determining what you may want to do, especially with regard to career. But no matter how good the assessment, it can only take you so far. Following are two somewhat non-traditional ways of exploring your heart’s desires:

Daydreams - Daydreams can be a real clue to what you want in life, or what you want your life to look like. Daydreams differ from visualizing in that a daydream is more of a mental wander. Visualizing is focused and intentional, and is used in conjunction with goals already set.

Sometimes daydreams will give you direct information. Other times, it’s more general, showing you how you want to live your life, rather than what you will be doing.

Daydreams can also allow you to “try on” and then discard things that you don’t really want. Lifestyles that look glamorous on television, may lose their appeal when you daydream about how that might really look day to day.

Collages – Whether you create a collage using traditional pictures and poster board, or a technology-based format (www.Oprah.com has a free one – search for “Dream Board”), collages can reveal what truly appeals to you. The trick is to not censor or pick things because you think you “should.” Choose only things that truly speak to you. If it helps, tell yourself that you don’t have to act on anything on the board – it’s just a more concrete daydream. Pay attention to any patterns you see emerging, both in what appears and what doesn’t. What I found was that the use of visuals seemed to short-circuit what my brain said I wanted to be, do or have, and reveal a more honest desire.

Although I am a big believer in setting and achieving goals, I have learned over time to also be open to ideas that do not necessarily fit with my first stated goal. Life is funny that way – it has a way of trying to get your attention to help you do what you were really born to do. You just have to listen and watch for the clues.

What Do You Want to be When You Grow Up?

2009-10-26T16:03:00.003-05:00

Grownups are always asking kids what they want to be when they grow up, because they’re looking for ideas! ~Paula Poundstone

As with all good humor, the thing that makes this quote funny is the bit of truth it reveals. I remember reading books on goal setting, where the first step was to choose the goal. Most authors didn’t spend much time here, apparently assuming that everyone would know what their goal was! Not me. I didn’t know what “I wanted to be when I grew up.” All the books would ask the same question – "if you could do one thing and knew you wouldn’t fail, what would it be?"

But that question didn't help me – I didn’t want to choose just one thing. Barbara Sher, author of such books as I Could Do Anything if I Only Knew What it Was, and Refuse to Choose, says that if you’re one of those people who can’t choose just one thing, you may be a scanner. Traditional thought that says “pick one thing and stick to it,” may not work for you. If you’re a scanner, you may need to either choose several things and rotate through them (sometimes moving back and forth), or find a way to blend the things you love. And sometimes those things may not be your primary source of income.

Another struggle is the feeling that you have to pick the right thing. What if you chose wrong? But if you try to pick something you will want to do for the rest of your working life, you may become paralyzed by the fear of making a mistake, and never really choose anything. Instead, consider what you might like to do next, knowing that you can always choose to do something different later.

Marcus Buckingham, best-selling author of such books as, Now Discover Your Strengths, and, Find Your Strongest Life, notes that a true strength is not just something that you are good at, but also something that strengthens and energizes you. Under this definition, then, you are the best judge of your strengths. You know what to do with your life, even if it’s not what everybody else thinks you should do with it.

If you want ideas, the best place to look is within yourself – not a random sampling of kids.

Why Have a Strategic Life Plan?

2009-10-17T10:05:00.004-05:00

The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior. ~Dr. Phil

Although I believe this to be, for the most part, true, I also find that negative change can often occur so gradually that you don’t realize it’s happening until you wake up one day wondering how you got where you are. As Jim Rohn, business philosopher, says, “You don’t fail overnight. Instead, failure is a few errors in judgment, repeated every day.” That’s why a strategic life plan is so important. It helps keep you on track, because you are constantly checking in with yourself to see whether you are moving closer to, or farther away from your goals. If you are getting away from them, you can make corrections to get back on track before you have strayed too far.

Businesses review their goals monthly, quarterly and annually. They look at what went well, and what didn’t, and make changes along the way so they don’t reach the end of the year thinking, “Wow, what went wrong? We’re not even close to the goals we set at the beginning of the year!” Goals are not something you create and then put on the shelf. It’s important to create long-term goals in line with your vision, short-term goals to support the long-term ones, and daily prioritized task lists to make sure you hit your short-term goals. It’s similar to building a brick house; first you have the idea for the house (the vision). Then you create the blueprint (the long-term goal). Next, you determine what needs to be done first, and by when (the short-term goals), and finally begin laying the foundation and then each brick (daily prioritized tasks). You wouldn’t simply tell your crew to start building – without a vision or a blueprint, they would have no idea what the end product was supposed to look like.

You get the point. Yet many of us go through life just laying down bricks, without any real vision or blueprint of what we want our life to look like. Of course, whether you are building a brick home or a life, there will be times when things don’t go according to plan, whether because of a flaw in the original design, unexpected delays or the inevitable storms. But as long as you have the vision and the blueprint, you can accommodate those changes and continue to move forward.

That is the kind of past behavior that you want to rely on to indicate future behavior!

Columbus Day

2009-10-12T19:43:00.004-05:00

“You did what you knew how to do, and when you knew better, you did better.” ~Maya Angelou

Today is Columbus Day. I’ve read several Twitter posts (one of which was quite profane) indirectly or directly condemning Columbus, saying things like, “Today is Columbus Day in the U.S or as I like to call it, ‘First Illegal Immigrant Amnesty Day.’" Another said he was “Inspired 2 write a poem 2 commemorate the Columbus Day f***ery. ('cuse the profanity, it’s a profane holiday).” Some said Columbus was an idiot who got lost and proceeded to enslave a nation of natives.” Still others have called him a rapist and a “genocidal maniac.” Of course, all of these comments are made while looking through the lens of modern day beliefs and values, not the beliefs and values held by society back in 1792.

There are those who believe the U.S. should pay reparations to African Americans as a way to apologize for slavery. Yet the “adopted son” (an African American man) of Jane Pittman (see The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman) believed (and taught) that slavery was the fault of the white man and black Africans. He believed that if the African tribes had stood together, rather than fight each other, they could have fended off the white man. Not only that, but he pointed out that it was Africans who sold their brothers (and sisters) into slavery. Because he believed that both were to blame, he believed that both should take responsibility for their roles in slavery, and then move forward past slavery. Again, those who believe reparations should be paid are looking through the lens of modern day beliefs and values, not those held by society in the 1800s.

I’m not saying that the U.S. is perfect. We are people, and people always make mistakes – sometimes really big mistakes. What I am saying, however, is that we should perhaps apply Maya Angelou’s wise words not just to ourselves individually, but to our country as a whole. We did what we knew how to do, and when we knew better, we did (and are doing) better.

Are we going to want those who come after us, in some cases hundreds of years after us, to judge us as harshly as we are now judging those who came before us? Or do we hope that they forgive us our mistakes and focus on what we did right, understanding that we did the best we could?

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

2009-10-01T13:28:00.001-05:00

One of the more interesting observations I’ve made in delivering diversity training occurs in the discussion around “shared influence.” We talk about collaborative leadership and how that can foster more ownership and buy-in, as well as more ideas, which in turn makes for a stronger, more productive team. I ask whether employees are more engaged and more willing to go the extra mile when the manager simply assigns a task, or when the manager asks for input, and then asks that employee to implement her idea. The class inevitably chooses Scenario Two. It seems like such an obvious answer, yet how often do leaders actually do this?

Some participants have asked why the employer is teaching collaboration yet consistently uses a command-and-control model.

A good question, and one that points to a disconnect between what the employer says it wants to happen and what actually is happening in the organization. Interestingly, although the employees are asked to complete a survey at the end of the workshop, offering suggestions as to how the curriculum could be improved, few respond. Often, that will lead managers to say (in frustration), “We ask for their input, they don’t give it, and then they complain that we don’t listen to them!”

The next question, then, is, “Why aren’t the employees offering suggestions?” Although I don’t know the answer in this specific situation, it can sometimes occur when the employer has a history or a reputation of not listening to the employees. Employees give up, stop offering ideas, and don’t believe the employer when it says it “values their opinions.” When it gets to this point, the employer is really going to have a difficult time convincing the employees that it has changed its ways, and truly does want the employee to contribute.

Actions consistent with stated positions will build trust and encourage collaboration. If the two are not consistent, people will always believe actions over words.

On Thinking Strategically

2009-09-29T13:53:00.003-05:00

I recently conducted a break-out group for Project Lemon-Aid (a free monthly event for job seekers in the Des Moines metropolitan area) on the subject of strategic job searches. Strategic thinking is a natural strength of mine (as validated by the Clifton Strengthsfinder Assessment!), so it’s quite natural for me to view any goal strategically, and to ask lots of “What if. . .” and “What about this?” kinds of questions.

Others have told me that any phrase including the word “strategic” sounds like a very complex business buzz phrase. But strategic planning, whether it’s about your business, your life, or a job search basically comes down to answering three questions:

“Where do you want to be?” This is your goal, your vision. What would your perfect business, life or job look like if you could create it tomorrow, exactly as you would like it to be, and without regard to whether it’s possible. Do not censor any ideas! There are three reasons for this. First, although it may not be possible, it may trigger ideas that are possible. Second, even if it’s not possible tomorrow, it may be possible in a year, or more. If you know what “perfect” looks like, you can develop a plan to get there. Finally, perhaps your dream isn’t as impossible as you think.

“Where are you now?” Be brutally honest (but not cruel) here. If you’re not honest about where you currently are in relation to your goal, it will be hard to answer the third question, because it will be based upon faulty information.

“How do you get from Point A to Point B?” The best way to answer this question is to begin at the end, and work backwards. Becoming an attorney was an overwhelming goal to me. But when I worked backwards, I knew that to be an attorney, I had to pass the bar. To take the bar, I had to graduate from an accredited law school, and so forth, until I got to a “first step” (request information) that was easy to implement. From there, each step built on the one before, making it not overwhelming, but instead, quite possible.

So don’t let the idea of being strategic in the pursuit of your goals scare you. Answer the three basic questions, and take it step by step.

By the Numbers

2009-09-15T13:47:00.001-05:00

Apologies for the delay in posting – I’ve been doing diversity training in Glenwood and working on other projects. But now, as promised – here are the numbers[1]:

Women make up 26% of first-level managers, 37% of mid-level managers, 28% of senior-level managers, and only 9% of executive-managers (sometimes referred to as “falling off the cliff” or “falling off the management ladder”)
More than 70% of the top 1,500 U.S. firms have no women on the senior leadership team (Dezso & Ross, 2008)
Among executives, 50% more men than women are [identified as] high-potentials
“Even when women make up the majority of leaders in an industry, they are still vastly underrepresented at the top. Male executives outnumbered females by 2 to 1.”
Women in the U.S. make roughly 81 cents for every dollar earned by a man for the same work.

Whether you are talking about pay or title, these numbers send a clear message that work performed by women, even when it’s the same work as performed by men is not valued as much as that done by men.

So even though women are graduating from high schools and colleges at a higher rate than men, and even though they constitute half of the workforce, they and the work they perform are still being undervalued.

And what happens when a company continues to devalue members of its workforce? They leave. They either go to a company that does value them, or start their own companies. Women have been the leaders in start-up businesses for quite some time now. [2] For employers this means lost talent (both in terms of the woman leaving, as well as future “stars” when the employer develops a reputation for not promoting women), lost dollars (in terms of turn-over costs) and lost opportunities.

Are women valued at your place of employment? And don’t just automatically say yes – dig deep, and get the real answer.

[1] Howard, Ph.D., Ann, and Richard S. Well. Holding Women Back: Troubling Discoveries - and Best Practices for Helping Female Leaders Succeed. Rep. DDI's Global Leadership Forecast 2008/2009, 2008/2009. Print, citing Desvaux, G., Devillard-Hoellinger, S., & Meaney, C. (2008). A Business Case for women. The McKinsey Quarterly, (4), 26-33[3]Ibarra, Herminia, and Obodaru Otilia. "Women and the Vision Thing." Harvard Business Review (2009): 62-70. Print.
[2] According to the Center for Women’s Business research, the number of women-owned businesses in the U.S. grew at twice the rate of all firms between 1997 and 2002.

The "Duh" Statistic

2009-08-29T09:33:00.001-05:00

It’s true that I said my next blog post would talk about numbers, but I’m going to digress for a minute, based upon a recent conversation I had with a gentleman regarding women in leadership. He cited a USA TODAY survey that asked female CEOs, chairs and company founders to identify the one mentor who had the most influence on their careers. Thirty-three of the thirty-four who responded identified a man. This gentleman seemed quite surprised, so I simply asked him, “Why do you think that is?” Although he told me knew why, he didn’t actually answer the question.

I told him that to me, this is what I call a “Duh” statistic. The answer to my question is that there have not, traditionally, been any women at the top to mentor those coming up. So, “Duh,” their mentor was going to be a man.

He seemed to be a bit surprised that the women surveyed would “admit” that their mentor was a man. I asked him why he thought they wouldn’t admit that – after all, it’s the truth. And again, it’s not as though they had a choice between a man and woman and chose a man over a woman. The important thing when looking at surveys and statistics is to look at the big picture, and to the possible reasons behind the numbers.

As more women work their way up into the executive level, there will be more women available to serve as mentors, and my guess is that if USA Today runs the survey again in twenty years, the numbers will be quite different.

Why Women Leaders?

2009-08-24T10:40:00.004-05:00

I recently posted a question on LinkedIn (thanks to Ben Stone of RPO Consulting for his tutorial!), regarding how to promote my brand (helping women succeed personally and professionally) in an era where employers are suffering from “diversity fatigue.” One insightful comment commented that “[d]iversity fatigue comes from the perception that diversity initiatives are pursuing social, rather than business, objectives.”[1]

In one of my presentations, I point out that gender diversity at the top of an organization is about more than simply doing the “right thing,” which is the social issue aspect. There are also compelling business reasons. In a report by Development Dimensions International (“DDI”) the authors referenced a study conducted in 2008 that found that when there were “three or more women in senior management [the organization] scored higher on all dimensions directly linked to financial performance” than those organizations with no women at the top. [2] Additionally, the Global Executive Leadership Inventory (“GELI”), which measures degrees of competency in global leadership, was used to assess participants in Insead’s executive education program. It found that women were rated higher on nearly every category than men.[3]

The idea is not that only women should lead, any more than it’s a good idea to only have men at the top. It’s the balance that the organization should look for.

Unfortunately, what often happens is that organizations look at their c-suite, realize there are few, if any, women there, and begin “plugging women in” to various spots (usually HR). But if women have not had access to developmental opportunities such as mentoring, “choice” assignments and formal/informal education, they will struggle to succeed. It’s important, therefore, to identify high potential women early on, so that they can be developed appropriately. A formal succession plan can help this identification process be objective and gender neutral, which will, in turn, allow women access to developmental programs and a natural succession of women to the top positions.

In the next post, I'll give you some numbers regarding women in senior positions, and the implications for business. Then we'll talk about what organizations can do to change this, as well as what individual women can do.

[1] Daniel Kenna
[2] Howard, Ph.D., Ann, and Richard S. Well. Holding Women Back: Troubling Discoveries - and Best Practices for Helping Female Leaders Succeed. Rep. DDI's Global Leadership Forecast 2008/2009, 2008/2009. Print, citing Desvaux, G., Devillard-Hoellinger, S., & Meaney, C. (2008). A Business Case for women. The McKinsey Quarterly, (4), 26-33
[3]Ibarra, Herminia, and Obodaru Otilia. "Women and the Vision Thing." Harvard Business Review (2009): 62-70. Print.

Does Age Matter?

2009-08-21T10:59:00.002-05:00

Coffee shops are a great place for entrepreneurs to work. Besides the obvious perks (free internet and good coffee), it’s a fabulous place to eavesdrop and hear what people are thinking and talking about.

Today there is a group of about six older women (probably in their late 60’s/early 70’s) sitting near me who are hopping mad. They are having one of the most vigorous political discussions I have heard in quite some time. They are knowledgeable, articulate and passionate about their country and the issues we all face.

Their discussion is of particular interest to me because of recent experiences I have had working with a variety of people on both diversity training and job searches. On the one hand, a panel of human resources people assured the job hunters that their organization did not discriminate against older people. Yet in my diversity training sessions with a different group of people, all acknowledged that age discrimination (among other types of discrimination) is, unfortunately, alive and well. This isn’t to say it is always intentional. Many of our impressions, both positive and negative, are made in the first 30 seconds after meeting someone (when the only thing we have to base that opinion on is appearance/presentation). We combine those impressions with our beliefs about people who look like the person in front of us (which are usually stereotypes), and come to a conclusion, whether accurate or not. This often hurts older people searching for work.

We all know the stereotypes associated with older people; they don’t have as much energy, they’re just putting in their time until retirement, they’re not up-to-date on current issues, and they’re set in their ways. But I can’t help but think that if hiring managers could hear these women, those stereotypes would be blown out of the water in a heartbeat.

Are Women Visionary?

2009-08-17T13:48:00.002-05:00

Knowing my interest in women’s leadership development, Jeff Garrison, of JCG Consulting, recently sent me an article that appeared in the January 2009 edition of Harvard Business Review. The title of the article, Women and the Vision Thing, looked at a survey that found that as a group, women scored higher than men in many areas of leadership. The one critical area where they did not score as well was in the area of “envisioning – the ability to recognize new opportunities and trends in the environment and develop a new strategic direction for an enterprise.”

The article offered three possible reasons for this, but it’s the first I’d like you to consider today: the idea that women may use a different process than men for shaping the future. In other words, maybe we’re not recognizing a woman’s ability to be a visionary, because “visionary” doesn’t look the way we are used to seeing it.

If a woman’s process is to bring together her entire team to strategically plan for the future, is she less visionary because she includes the entire team?

I’ve written before about how a different way of leading doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the wrong way of leading. It’s important to look at results to see whether a method is “wrong” or simply different. If a department headed by a woman is thriving, growing, and moving forward, how can it be said that she is not visionary, even if she credits her team with working well together to achieve results?

What does a visionary leader look like?

Helping Girls Become Strong Women

2009-08-10T09:04:00.004-05:00

In the last post, I talked about raising strong girls/women, noting that we don’t have to ban “girly” things to raise strong women, anymore than we have to ban “manly” things to raise nurturing boys. Today, I’ll talk about what that has to do with women’s leadership.

When women first began assuming leadership roles in Corporate America, they tried to be like men, even to the point of wearing a suit and tie (albeit a modified one). However, the “command and control” model wasn’t really working for women, because that’s not how women typically work. Not that women never use that model, and not that they can’t; it’s just that when you analyze women’s leadership style over a large population, that’s not the model that stands out.

Women tend to be more collaborative, and have what is now referred to as a more transformative style of leadership. The interesting thing is, research is showing that this type of leadership can, in many cases, be more successful than the traditional command-and-control model. Strength of leadership is demonstrated most clearly in successful leadership.

All of this leads to the conclusion that if we allow girls to develop their natural strengths and interests (whether that means playing Barbies or baseball), while encouraging them to try new things, we will help them to naturally develop into strong leaders. Trying to force them into a model that does not suit them creates only weakness.

So relax. Introduce your daughter to a wide variety of experiences, and then let her take the lead in developing her interests and gifts.

Raising Strong Women

2009-07-29T13:27:00.002-05:00

I recently had a conversation with the dad of a precocious and charming 5-year-old girl. He wants her to grow up to be a strong woman, but seemed confused as to how best to do that. He seemed a bit concerned about her attraction to “girly” things (my word, not his), but then in the next breath noted that his wife, clearly a strong woman, also liked make-up and nice clothes (apparently “girly” things).

I thought about how I was raised, given that I consider myself a strong woman. I told the dad that I had loved Barbies as a child (the ultimate “girly” thing), but that I also liked playing baseball. I recalled a conversation I once had with my mom. She told me that I (the wife) should “serve” my husband pie (keep in mind, it was a different generation). Wow, did that raise my hackles! I told her in no uncertain terms that if I wanted to get something for my husband because I loved him and wanted to do something nice for him, that was fine, but that I would not serve him simply because he was the man and I the woman. Her expression told me she was sure I was headed for divorce court (as an aside, my husband and I just celebrated our 22nd wedding anniversary). Despite her beliefs, I grew up to be a strong woman.

The point is, we don’t have to ban “girly” things in order for girls to be strong, any more than we have to ban “manly” things for our sons in order for them to be more nurturing (and by the way - why is it “girl”y for females, and “man”ly for males?).

What does all this have to do with leadership? We’ll talk about that in the next post.

To Swear or Not To Swear - That is the Question

2009-07-22T12:27:00.003-05:00

Call me old-fashioned, but I really hate seeing profanity creeping into blogs, webinars and “professional” social media. Besides the idea that that kind of language is not professional, it also suggests a sort of arrogance, in the sense that you are delivering your message in a way that may be offensive to clients or potential clients, without caring whether your clients or potential clients may be offended.

I’m willing to consider that perhaps it depends on your target audience. I once read a comment to a profanity-laced blog that applauded the blogger for “using language that real people use.” I would suggest, however, that not all “real people” use or like profanity and vulgarity, and that use of profanity more often gets in the way of the message. There are very few cases where use of profanity enhances the message (in the true sense of the word) in a way that a non-profane word can’t.

Social media and other forms of electronic communication have obviously changed the way we communicate. Twitter, by its very nature (only 140 characters!) is a less formal way of writing, as are Facebook and even e-mails. But if you are communicating as a “representative” of your company, or to people who are current or potential customers, it’s important to communicate with "clean" language, regardless of the forum.

Grandma always said profanity cheapened the person and made them appear far less intelligent than they might actually be. Why risk sending this message and starting off on the wrong foot with a potential client?

Leadership and Access to "High Potentials" Opportunities

2009-07-20T14:07:00.003-05:00

I just spoke to the former dean of the law school I attended. He and I were talking about diversity training, and I noted that I was particularly interested in women’s leadership issues. His take on diversity was that it consisted of two parts: first, do no harm (i.e., do not discriminate) and second, reap the benefits that diversity offers, especially in a global economy. I told him that although it’s a simple concept, it’s often difficult for companies to implement. Most want to do the right thing, but it’s human nature to want to hire people who are like us (no matter how you define that, i.e., gender, race, age or even extroverts/introverts!). Second, employers often don’t know how to do this.

In order for women to succeed at the top level, a/k/a, the C-suite, they need to have access to “high potentials” opportunities along the way. But what does that mean? “High potentials” are, as the name suggests, those who exhibit strong potential for high-level leadership roles. Unfortunately, at the executive level, men are considered “high potentials” 50% more often than women.[i]

"High-potentials" opportunities include mentoring, choice assignments (i.e., those that directly affect profitability of the company), and multinational experiences (whether or not that includes moving overseas). Companies set women up for failure when women are not developed as a high potential, but are later “stuck” in an executive position (when companies realize that they are a little “short” on women in executive positions).

Formalized succession planning, objective performance assessments and mentoring should be a part of an overall commitment to help women develop as leaders. A more balanced workforce at the executive level consistently results in a more profitable organization; failure to promote or pay women appropriately sends the message that comparable work performed by women is not as valued as that performed by men, and often results in loss of talent that can be difficult and costly to replace.

______________________________________________________________________
[i] Works Cited: Howard, Ph.D., Ann, and Richard S. Wellins, Ph.D. Holding Women Back: Troubling Discoveries - and Best Practices for Helping Female Leaders Succeed. Rep. Bridgeville, PA: DDI's Global Leadership Forecast 2008/2009, 2009.

Runaway Bride

2009-07-17T09:16:00.002-05:00

I have this weird knack for taking random scenes from movies and applying them to completely different pieces of my own (or others’) life.

I recently watched The Runaway Bride again. This movie, featuring Richard Gere and Julia Roberts, is about a journalist named Ike Graham (Gere) who writes a less-than-flattering story about Maggie Carpenter (Roberts) and her penchant for leaving men at the altar. Predictably, when Ike goes to Maggie’s small town to defend his story, he falls in love with her, and they are set to marry. He is standing at the altar when Maggie starts down the aisle toward him. She hesitates a moment, and he locks eyes with her, forcing her to focus on him and ignore everything else going on around her. As long as she does that, she moves down the aisle toward him. However, when a guest takes a flash photo, it momentarily blinds Ike, and he breaks eye contact with Maggie. Immediately, she loses her focus and bolts.

Running your business or your life is a little bit like that, I’ve found. As long as I can stay focused on my goals and the tasks at hand, I can move forward towards that goal. When I am distracted by life’s little (and sometimes not-so-little) “interruptions,” it’s easy for me to lose my focus and get off track. Depending on the distraction, it’s sometimes hard to get refocused, and I end up wasting valuable time.

That’s why visualization of your goal every day is so critical. Visualization is not a valuable tool because it magically makes things appear in your life; it is valuable because it keeps you focused on the goal and its achievement. Failure to visualize can cause the goal to become fuzzy; you will lose focus and can, like Maggie, eventually abandon the dream.

Stay focused; achieve your dreams.

Sarah Palin and Leadership

2009-07-10T10:17:00.004-05:00

As most people know by now, Sarah Palin made the decision to step down from her position as governor of Alaska. This has, of course, triggered a media feeding-frenzy, as every expert tries to guess why she did it. Her stated reason was because she did not want to be a “lame duck” governor, just riding out her term spending tax-payer money while accomplishing little.

Of course, the speculation is that she’s positioning herself to make a run for president in 2012. And perhaps she is. It would be difficult to campaign for a national position while living and effectively governing in Alaska.

Politics aside, what I find so interesting is that no one is talking about whether what she is doing is simply a different, non-traditional, non-masculine way of doing things. Clearly, giving up power because it’s best for her state is non-traditional – when was the last time you heard of a man (or a woman trying to succeed using a traditionally masculine model of leadership) doing that? And if she’s stepping down so she can run for President, is that worse that the candidates (male and female) who retain their Senate seats while actively campaigning for a higher office? How effective are these individuals in the Senate when their main focus is their campaign?

Studies have repeatedly shown that women lead differently than men; that we are less concerned with “command and control” styles of leadership, and more interested in transformative leadership. Those same studies have also demonstrated that generally speaking, traditionally feminine styles of leadership are often more effective and contribute more to the bottom line.

Is it possible that Sarah Palin just has a different way of leading? And is her “different” way necessarily wrong? Or are we just not used to seeing it done that way?

Official vs. Unofficial Branding

2009-07-07T11:17:00.003-05:00

Yesterday, I met with Jeff Garrison, of JCG Consulting. Although we covered a lot of ground, one of the most interesting (yet briefest) things we talked about was something I referred to as “unofficial” branding, based on the tried and true cliché that “actions speak louder than words.” The goal, of course, is to have your official brand be consistent with your unofficial brand. In a negative example of this, a company I have dealt with in the past proudly displayed their official brand – incredible customer experiences – around the store. Yet, the wait for service was always quite lengthy (at one point, they were telling customers it was going to be two hours before someone could help them!). Clearly, the official brand (i.e., what the company said its brand was), and the unofficial brand (what the company actually did) were inconsistent. Which one do you think the customer believed?

This is true of “internal” brands as well, i.e., the relationship you have with your employees. If you list “family” as one of your values, yet are consistently resistant to allowing employees to be flexible with their schedule so they can care for their families, you will lose credibility and trust. Your employees (internal customers) are going to believe your unofficial, action brand rather than your official, stated brand.

It’s not going to matter how many ads you run saying that you are devoted to great customer service or being a family friendly employer; if your actions don’t back up what you are saying, your unofficial brand will always speak louder. Even if you change course and begin “walking the walk,” it may take you a very long time (if ever) to convince your customers/employees that you have changed.

So – do your official and unofficial brands match?

Independence Day

2009-07-03T10:17:00.007-05:00

Fourth of July is one of my favorite holidays. I love going to Yankee Doodle Pops and watching the fireworks afterward (not to mention all the people watching!). It’s free, it’s fabulous, and I always get choked up singing the Star Spangled Banner. Every time. I love cheering for the veterans that attend – and those who never returned.

The Independence Day parade is also something I try very hard not to miss. My daughter was born on July 2, and we took her to the 4th of July parade in tiny Hills, Iowa two days later. Jaws were dropping to see such a tiny child exhibiting her patriotism (ok, she actually slept through the whole thing – even the fire engines!).

Picnics are a staple for the 4th of July, and the fireworks always amaze me. I feel just like a little kid in one sense; struck by the awe of something that always seems so uniquely American. I delight in watching little kids dancing with their sparklers (even the ones who shriek in terror at the sparks), but also appreciate that I can watch all this from my driveway!

Ultimately, though, the 4th of July reminds me of how blessed I am to have been born and raised in the United States of America, where freedom is cherished and fought for. As Americans, we have a duty to those who gave up their lives for our freedom, as well as a duty to ourselves and our children, to never take those freedoms for granted, and to fight valiantly, whether with pen, voice or body to preserve those freedoms. We have a duty to not willingly give up those freedoms just because we don’t think it will affect us. We have a duty to pay attention, and to object when someone tries to take our freedom away, and we need to be especially careful when a freedom is stolen under the guise of being “for our own good.”

Be vigilant. Be proud of our country. Be free.

The Women of Beacon of Life

2009-06-25T10:58:00.008-05:00

On Wednesday evening, I had the opportunity to meet some amazing women. These women are a little different than most women we define as amazing. Usually we identify women such as Oprah, Meryl Streep and (depending on your political leanings) Sarah Palin/Hillary Clinton as amazing women. And certainly they are. But last night I met women like Susan (yes, these names have been changed), who was homeless and a recovering alcoholic; Jennifer, whose drug addiction caused her to “give up” her nine children for adoption, but who just completed her GED, is working, volunteering in her community and working towards her CNA; women who have been victims of domestic violence, have been homeless, and have been convicted of various crimes. But these women, against what looks like insurmountable odds, are battling back. They are taking responsibility for their lives, they are learning new skills that will help them be successful, and they are working hard to turn their lives around. It’s not easy for them, and some may not make it. Their definition of success may be vastly different from most people’s, but they are, day by day, working toward that success.

These are the women who live at Beacon of Life, a non-profit transitional housing center for women. It’s structured and it holds women accountable, but it is also a safe place to land. It’s a roof over their heads and food on the table, but even more than that, it’s a place to go when there is no other place to go. A place to rebuild lives in a supportive environment.

If you get a chance, go take the tour, send them a check, join a committee, or have fun at the Quiz Bowl (a quarterly fund raiser)! Go take a look at http://www.beaconoflifedm.org/.

Places like the Beacon also help the rest of us put our life and problems in perspective, and remind us to be grateful for all the blessings we have in life. Your responsibility, like the women at the Beacon, is to live your own amazing life.

Creating Your Life

2009-06-23T14:59:00.001-05:00

We’ve all heard the phrase, “The best way to predict your life is to create it.” But if that’s true, why don’t we all live fabulous, fulfilling lives? Wouldn’t we all “predict” a life of abundance and joy? The hard part, of course, is the “creating” piece. How do we create the life we truly want?

Although it sounds obvious, the first step, which most people (my younger self included) skip completely, is determining what, exactly, it is that we want. We often drift along, taking opportunities that are given to us, but never really pursuing the things we want, and never putting into place a specific plan for achieving those goals.

If you could “start over” or even start from where you are now, and choose to be, do and have whatever you wanted, what would you choose? If you were writing the most audacious Christmas brag letter about your past year, what would it say? If you could stifle that inner critic, and let your inner hero speak from your heart and your head, what would she say?
It can be scary to think this way, because you’re afraid of the disappointment when you “realize” you can’t do those things. But what if you could? How exciting would that be? Would you need external motivators to get you out of bed in the morning to live your life?

You learned to dream big as a child, then had that pounded out of you by “reality.” But wouldn’t it be more fun to turn those big dreams into your reality? To create that life instead of the one you’ve settled for?

Is your focus on winning or not losing?

2009-06-18T08:57:00.004-05:00

I just finished T. Harv Eker’s book, Secrets of the Millionaire Mind. I strongly urge you to read it if you haven’t yet. Although it’s clearly about making money, many of the principles apply to other areas of life, so even if you’re as rich as Oprah, you can still gain valuable information from it.

One quote that struck a chord with me was this: “Rich people focus on what they want, while poor people focus on what they don’t want. What you focus on expands.” He also says, “Rich people play the money game to win. Poor people play the money game to not lose.” Although this sounds like arguing semantics, it’s actually an incredibly significant difference, both in mentality and outcome. I realized that I was someone who was trying very hard not to lose, and that I was focused on how much money I lacked. Because what I focus on expands, I was getting a whole lot more of “not enough.”

This mental habit is something I “inherited” from my childhood experiences, and is very difficult to change. General consensus in the scientific community is that it takes 21 days to change a habit, although others believe it takes at least 90 days to really solidify the new habit. But because it is a habit, the good news is that it can be changed.

What about you? Are you focusing on what you want (abundance, joy, success), or on what you don’t want (to be broke, to lose your job, etc.)? What habits do you need to change to get back on track?

A Planner Succumbs to Action!

2009-06-12T08:58:00.003-05:00

I am a huge planner – sometimes to my detriment. I say that because sometimes I spend so much time planning, that I never get around to doing. When I decided to start my own business, however, I decided things were going to be different. I did plan, but not to the death of the business. The interesting thing is that the focus of the business has evolved fairly significantly over the short year it’s been open, but only because I was actually working on it, and talking to people. Had I just tried to plan the business as it is now, it would never have gotten to this point. Clarity and focus required questions and input from new people, not closed up in a room by myself.

I also vowed to take advantage of opportunities that came up along the way, even if they weren’t part of the original “plan.” If I thought it would move me closer to my goal, I did it. Even if I was scared, even if it was different from anything I had done before, I did it. Although I haven’t reached my goal yet, things are definitely moving forward at a much faster pace than I might have expected.

What about you? Have you found that once you “committed” to your goal it has brought things into your life to support the achievement of that goal?

Accountability

2009-06-08T13:06:00.004-05:00

I once was the director of a small non-profit. We provided transportation for (primarily) senior citizens. One of our clients “James,” was very difficult. So difficult, in fact, that even my very best drivers refused to drive him, for a variety of reasons. My staff dreaded his calls, because he constantly changed his numerous appointments, creating a scheduling nightmare.

When it became apparent that we were not going to be able to continue to serve him, I sent a letter outlining the difficulties we had had with him, and reminding him that we had visited about these issues before, without resolution.

Interestingly, when he received the letter, he became very angry. He accused me of lying, of assaulting his character, and stated that I was the only one with whom he had a problem. At no time did he ever consider that he might bear some of the responsibility for the drastic step I had taken. None of it was “his fault.”

If we blame other people or events for our failures, we miss out on the chance to grow. Blaming others suggests that if the same situation came up, minus that other person/event, we could behave in exactly the same manner and be successful. Although this may be true sometimes, it is important to recognize what we did or did not do that contributed to the failure. If we do this, then when the situation comes up again, we can correct our own behavior and increase our likelihood of success. And, of course, we can’t control anyone’s behavior but our own anyway.

Are you taking responsibility for your mistakes and doing your best to correct them, or are you allowing denial to keep you from growth and a better, more rewarding way of doing things?

Failure can be a good thing

2009-06-03T13:48:00.000-05:00

Remember the good ol’ days when our parents let us fail? If we failed a test, our parents didn’t rush in insisting that the grade be changed or we be given a second chance. If we misbehaved in school, our parents didn’t call the principal and insist it was the teacher’s fault, and ask that our punishment be lifted (or argue that it was too harsh). We always kept score in sports, and if we didn’t win, our parents didn’t try to placate us by buying ice cream afterwards. Nor did they yell “good job” when we swung at, but missed the ball by a country mile. No, they had the audacity to suggest that perhaps we needed to practice more!

We have gotten to the point where we never let our kids fail – and this is a bad thing, for a number of reasons. Failure can be a really great teacher, especially with its negative consequences.

Failure also does a great job of discouraging kids from developing a sense of entitlement, because they know they won’t always get their way, especially if they don’t work hard to achieve their goals.

Finally, it’s better to learn how to deal with failure as a child when the consequences are not typically as dire as they can be when you fail as an adult.

Losing and winning are a part of life. If you don’t allow your kids to lose or fail (and experience that completely), you are doing them a disservice. It’s better to let them fail honestly, and then teach them how to get back up, dust themselves off, and try again. Self-esteem and self-confidence come from real achievement, not from a phony “good job!”

2009-04-09T14:19:00.000-05:00

Jim Rohn is a well-known business philosopher. A headline on his web-site (http://www.jimrohn.com) caught my eye one day, entitled, “The Ant Philosophy.” The ant philosophy? I thought. That ought to be interesting. He posed two questions, complete with answers. He first asked, “When was the last time you saw ants bump up against an obstacle and give up with their heads down and head back to the ant hole to relax?” The answer? “Never. If they're headed somewhere and you try to stop them, they will look for another way. They'll climb over, they'll climb under, they'll go around — regardless of the effort involved.” The next question he asks is, “How much will an ant gather during the summer to prepare for winter?” And the answer to that? “All that it possibly can. Ants don't have quotas or "good enough" philosophies. They don't gather a certain amount and then head back to the hole to "hang out." If an ant can do more, it does.”

Finally, Mr. Rohn challenged his readers to “[i]magine what you could accomplish if you never quit and always did all that you could do.”

The interesting thing about all this is that nobody says that the ant who is trying to gather as much as possible is being greedy or materialistic. Instead, they say he is being industrious and responsible. Nobody suggests the ant should share with anyone who is not gathering anything for the winter. Every ant is responsible for himself. Nobody says the government should take care of the ant or bail him out if he’s irresponsible and collects nothing in preparation for winter.

So if we don’t say that about ants, why do we say that about people? Why is there this backlash against hard-working wealthy people who are good stewards of their money (I’m not talking here about greedy CEOs who bankrupt a company and then expect a very golden parachute)? Why do we say they are greedy and materialistic, rather than industrious and responsible? Why do we say they should be forced to help take care of people who refuse to be responsible for themselves?

Of course, humans are a bit more complex than ants; there are wealthy people who obtain their wealth through fraudulent means or cronyism, rather than through hard work and good stewardship. And there are people who cannot care for themselves, rather than those who will not. The ant world does not differentiate between cannot and will not – either way, those ants will likely die. In the human world, we often don’t differentiate between cannot and will not either; but in our world, those people do not die – they are supported by the government, i.e., taxpayers, whether they fall in the cannot or will not category. And I’m not saying we shouldn’t care for those who cannot take care of themselves – I’m not that heartless!

But what if we could get everyone to focus on Mr. Rohn’s last statement? What if everyone did all they could do (which, of course would be different for each person), and no one ever quit (and please don’t confuse quit with change in this example)? How much more successful would your business be? How many truly amazing things could you – and we - accomplish?

Since When

2009-04-08T13:40:00.000-05:00

Since when is it bad to be rich? Isn't every good, whether it's your home, food and clothing, a church building, food for "starving children in (fill in the blank with the current Third World nation needing our help)," a result of money you have earned and spent? Is it not true that more good can be accomplished with money than without?

Since when did wealth start to symbolize greed, rather than achievement, hard work and ambition?

Since when did we stop believing that we had a responsibility to take care of ourselves and our families?

Since when did we decide that the government can do a better job taking care of us than we can?

Since when did we begin thinking that simply wanting something entitled us to it? And further, why do we think the government should be the one to give it to us?

Since when did we start believing that separation of church and state meant we gave up our right to free speech with regard to our religious beliefs?

Since when did we decide it was acceptable and even required under the First Amendment to allow people to spout off about hatred, violence and sexual crimes, but not about God, fearing we might offend someone by talking about the latter, but not the former?

Since when did we stop believing that we are a sovereign nation, and instead begin believing that we are a global "citizen," required to answer to those of other nations?

Since when did we stop thinking that it was important to have one language to unite our country, and instead begin believing it was acceptable to let everyone speak their own language, no matter how much chaos that created?

Since when did we stop thinking it was important for those who wanted to live in our country and take advantages of all the rights that come along with citizenship to actually become U.S. citizens, with all of the responsibilities that that entails?

Since when did we begin thinking it was acceptable to allow individuals to break our immigration laws, and then - to help them do it by providing sanctuary cities, refusing to allow our police to arrest them for breaking immigration laws, and then to provide them with free education, healthcare and welfare benefits?

Since when did we begin believing that simply being born in this country is enough to confer citizenship upon someone?

Since when is it the fault of the United States when attempts to enforce our immigration laws result in separating families? Didn't those parents know the risks that this could happen, and didn't they choose to take that risk?

Since when did we begin believing that it's possible to spend our way out of debt?

Since when did we decide it was acceptable to saddle our children and grandchildren with a huge debt obligation?

Since when did we give up our obligation to be informed about the issues affecting us?

Since when did we stop holding our elected officials accountable for their actions? And when did we decide that "accountable" simply meant voting against them when we didn't like what they were doing? When did we stop communicating our discontent (and anger) at the time they occur, rather than in the voting booth?

Since when did we begin believing that government should regulate everything from our light bulbs to our toilets, from whether business owners can allow smoking in their establishment to how many miles per gallon our cars have to get?

Since when did "social justice" stop being a means to an end (of worshiping and serving God), and instead become an end in and of itself?

Since when did we decide it's a good idea to teach our children that just showing up is good enough to get a trophy?

Since when did we lose faith in our own abilities?

Since when?