Is Your Focus Drawn Too Narrowly?

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

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.

Friends Connect! Summit - Wow!!

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!

Are Women Visionary?

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

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.