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?