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.

The "Language" of Sexism

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

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

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?

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?

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.