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.

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!

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?

By the Numbers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "Duh" Statistic

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

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

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

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

Why Women Leaders?

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.

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.

The Women of Beacon of Life

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

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

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

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