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.

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!

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

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

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

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

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

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

Why Women Leaders?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Raising Strong Women

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

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

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

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

Leadership and Access to "High Potentials" Opportunities

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

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

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

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

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

Sarah Palin and Leadership

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

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

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

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

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