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.

Do Businesses STILL Not Get It?

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

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?

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!!

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

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?

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

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

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