Tag: gender inequity

Categories
General

One Billion Women

For those who don’t follow my tweets ( http://twitter.com/#!/JoanGallos ), this is exciting enough for a full write-up so please read on. [Check me out on Twitter if you want links to the articles reporting the story.]

The world of business and commerce has finally learned what women and micro-finance enterprises (like my personal favorite, the U.S.-based microloan agency called FINCA) have long known: invest in women. Women are reliable (and they repay their loans). They share the fruits of their economic success with their families and communities. Their success drives down illiteracy and mortality rates and supports the education of their children. And, as folks at the Economic Summit in Davos this month reminded us, their nation’s GDP goes up when women’s economic well-being does. Economies that engage women develop more quickly and out-perform those that don’t.

Investing in women is a win-win-win – and these understandings is moving into the boardroom in big ways for what Newsweek recently called “a corporate revolution.”  And I quote:

“Now a corporate revolution is at hand, one that is moving beyond philanthropy, making women partners in business at all levels. . . . On Feb. 1, some of the most powerful companies in the United States (Accenture, Coca-Cola, Ernst and Young, Goldman Sachs, and others) are signing on to a worldwide campaign to bring women into the economic mainstream. The Third Billion Campaign is being launched by La Pietra Coalition – an alliance including corporations, governments, and nonprofits – to enable 1 billion women to become members of the global economy by 2025. The campaign title comes from the notion that over the next decade, the impact of women will be at least as significant as that of China’s and India’s respective 1-billion-plus populations.” (Newsweek, February 6, 2012, p. 12)

Some companies are ahead-of-the-curve on all this. Unilever has had a bottom-of-the-pyramid strategy for years that includes women. It has, for example, invested in 45,000 poor Indian women in 100,000 villages with micro-financing and training supports. In fact, 5% of its current profits in India flow from these efforts. Or Avon has 6 million women in 100 countries running their own small business – the life blood of the corporation. Companies like this demonstrate that bringing women into the economy translates into all the benefits to the women and their communities and families mentioned above – but also increased profits, new markets, better product education for new consumers, and product improvements for the company. It’s smart business to support women entrepreneurs at the grassroots level. Others have now pledged to take up the charge. 

And the Three Billion Campaign doesn’t stop with poor women in developing nations. Data is there to suggest it’s time for companies to address the lack of women in senior leadership and on boards. A recent survey by the New York-based think tank on women and careers Catalyst, for example, found a significant and strong correlation between gender diversity in a company’s leadership ranks and that company’s bottom-line. More women, better results. 

Reading this brought great pleasure. It also took me back to a recent experience, serving on a women in leadership panel with Gloria Steinem. In preparation, I went back and reread some of Steinem’s earlier works (which were so revolutionary at their publication almost half a century ago). I thought about a world where simple consciousness raising seemed shocking to one where some of the largest and most powerful corporations and agencies are pledging significant support — $20 billion, for example, by Walmart – so that 1 billion women will reach their economic potential.  

We have come a long way – and by 2025, will be a giant step closer to a fair and equitable world for men and for women.  Nice!  Very nice!    

Categories
General

For Shame, Forbes: Tarnishing a Gem in the Crown of Social Progress and Gender Equity

As I write, 104,778 people have viewed the Forbes article on the “10 Worst Stereotypes about Powerful Women.”

I’m curious. What did people learn from reading this? And what will they do with this information so that we never have to see another article about this topic again?

If you have been reading my blog this week, you know about mounting evidence of the links among gender, career success, and professional confidence. A quick summary for new readers: you need confidence to succeed!

I fear women will read this article and – tacitly or explicitly – find reasons to doubt that they have the right stuff for leadership and lose more of the confidence they need to craft careers of success and significance. Who wouldn’t if you thought that half the folks around you (and most of the folks in power above you) were still projecting all this old negativity on you?

Men who read the piece can have seeds of doubt planted – or reinforced – about their female co-workers.

In a week when men and women should celebrate another symbolic gem in the crown of social progress and gender equity as IBM appoints its first woman as CEO – Virginia Rometty joins the growing ranks of mega-corporation leaders that now include Ellen Kullman at DuPont, Meg Whitman at Hewlett-Packard, Ursula Burns at Xerox, Indra Nooyi at PepsiCo – 104,778 (and counting) people are having a refresher course on how to dismiss half the world’s population – and hold back progress on a host of fronts for us all.

All the traditional stereotypes are on the Forbes list – and Forbes Online kindly provides a slide show for those who don’t want to read the full article. The slides are a mix of actresses in their portrayal of fictional characters from movies and TV (e.g., Meryl Streep as the “frigid magazine editor” in The Devil Wears Prada and Glenn Close as the “back-stabbing boss” in Damages) with real women who are doing really important work. Each picture represents one of the negative gender stereotypes. Here’s where my blood began to boil.

It includes an unattractive photo of our successful, current Secretary of State (emotional), as well as associations of negativity with the photo of our First Lady (angry), the Head of the International Monetary Fund (masculine), our former Secretary of State (token), the President of Costa Rican (weak), a former Vice Presidential candidate (cheerleader), and the list goes on.

If I thought people were reading this article and standing in outrage that these associations were still happening in the year 2011, I’d feel better. But why do I fear snickers as the pictures of Hillary Clinton and others are passed around the water cooler instead?  And I am not going to even touch the racial issues in all this.

Enough Forbes! Enough media!  Seriously. We need stories that build the confidence and capacities of men and women so that they can bring their full talents to the range of contributions needed to succeed – and for our economy to rebound – in a fast-paced, global world.

Planting seeds of doubt reinforces the very thing this article hoped to counter! 

Categories
General

Leadership, Gender, and Confidence: Another Take

Another take on leadership, gender, and confidence from Jill Flynn, Kathryn Heath, and Mary Davis Holt, authors of the new book, Break Your Own Rules: How to Change the Patterns of Thinking that Block Women’s Paths to Power – and good advice for women and men seeking to increase their impact. 

The book is a fascinating read – and a recommendation that women finally discard the rules that have traditionally guided their leadership (and have been seen as women’s “strengths”). Women are a mere 11% of senior leadership in corporate American, and that number hasn’t changed in 30 years. The authors suggest it’s time to think seriously about how to make that change happen. 

Their advice: out with the old, please, and in with the new.  Reframe the everyday beliefs that women bring about how to lead and do themselves in the workplace.  For example:

Traditional approach: focus on others — New advice: take center stage

Traditional approach: seek approval — New advice: proceed until apprehended

Traditional approach: be modest — New advice: project personal power

Traditional approach: work harder — New advice: be politically savvy

Traditional approach: play it safe — New advice: play to win

Traditional approach: it’s all or nothing — New advice: it’s both-and

I’m not doing he book justice, but I want to get back to the confidence theme from my last post:

In a recent post of the HBR site, the authors assert they found – and “by a wide margin” – that the primary criticism men have about their female colleagues at work is that the women exhibit low self-confidence.

imageThe authors concede this may partly be perception — men can interpret a willingness to share credit or defer judgment as a lack of confidence. But they also note that there is plenty of research that suggests women feel less self-assured at work. See yesterday’s blog post, for one example. Another is a 2011 workforce study by Europe’s Institute of Leadership and Management that reports:

Men were more confident across all age groups: 70% of the men reported high or very high levels of self-confidence, compared to 50% of the women

Half of women managers admitted feelings of self-doubt about their performance and career, 31% of men reported the same

Lack of confidence makes women more cautious in applying for jobs and promotions: 20% of men said they would apply despite only partially meeting its job description, compared to 14% of women.

The authors turned to their own data and identified four specific low-confidence behaviors cited by male and female managers alike:

Being overly modest. Men are more willing to take public credit for their successes. Women believe their accomplishments should speak for themselves. They may – or they may be overlooked by all the busy people around them.

Not asking. Not asking means you’ve lost the chance to get what you need.  No more need be said on that one!

Blending in. The authors note that some women go to great lengths to avoid attention in the workplace. They want to do their work, stay professional, and wait to be appreciated.  A perfect strategy for remaining invisible!

Remaining silent. Don’t speak up and you won’t get in the conversation – or the game.

The author’s conclusion: Career momentum is not just about adding job skills. It’s about changing everyday thinking and behaviors.  Amen! 

Glad I could bring you these helpful insights. I ask you to share them – and this blog site – with others interested in improving their leadership.  I’d love to attract more readers – and I have plenty more to say about how to lead and how to lead for greater impact.

So how am I doing?  I’m practicing the suggested new behaviors!  Are you?

Categories
General

Hiring a Leader or Hiring a Stereotype?

The Chronicle of Higher Education Online had a piece on hiring that gave me pause. It tells the story of three candidates interviewing for a senior campus leadership position. Two played it safe and maintained distance from their audience with formal titles and podiums during their public forums. The third – who had tremendous support after a day of interviews and the strongest scholarly record among the three candidates – tried to demonstrate the values that would underpin her inclusive leadership style by suggesting more informality. Guess which two candidates were seen as real leaders?

[Skip to the text under the dotted line below if you want more case details before reading my comments.]

As a leadership scholar, I am struck by three things in the story. First, the power of the implicit leadership models we all carry – and how quickly and effortlessly they surface. If a candidate looks like what we think a leader should, acts like we think a leader would, then we must be seeing a leader, right? Maybe. Or we might be mindlessly projecting assumptions that have more to do with history and stereotypes than real leadership.

Second, our tacit models are often very traditional. In an increasingly complex, global world with serious challenges that we seem unable to resolve – war, poverty, violence, disease, oppression, threat of nuclear holocaust, destruction of the environment, and more – we need diverse ways of leading that capture collective wisdom and mobilize action like never before. Real leadership is about shared purpose and innovative problem solving, not blind adherence to hierarchy and protocol. To quote Einstein: We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. Substitute leadership for thinking in the quotation, and you get my point.

Third, gender’s at play one more time. “Acting like a girl” wasn’t intended as a compliment, I’m sure – even though I love the free spiritedness and exuberance implied in a non-evaluative use of that imagery. Nor was it an objective way to describe that the informal introduction and chair moving didn’t accomplish their intended purpose. A different framing of the event might have seen risk taking, an attempt to create real dialogue, and authenticity.

I have had lots of experience in academia and seen differential treatment of male and female candidates in searches of all kinds over the years. That leads me to posit that a male candidate trying the same seating circle might have been praised for his frame-breaking behavior and his humble expression of his humanity. If not praised, I doubt anyone would have pejoratively said he’s “acting like a boy” for trying it.

It’s time to expand how we see and think about leadership.

Holding onto stereotypes and traditional views – the leader as superman, the white knight on his trusty steed, the valiant warrior, the lone hero in search of the holy grail – clouds our perspectives toward leadership and wastes energy holding onto an outdated fantasy. It makes it hard to understand how ordinary people – those who differ from the stereotype because of gender, race, ethnicity, national origin, and other reasons – can successfully wear the leadership mantle. It also blinds us from looking below the surface of leadership’s perceived aura to identify what leadership really is and how it works.

…………………………………………………………………………………………..

From What Does a Leader Look Like?[1]

Quick, when I say “leader,” what comes to mind? The question is prompted by a story a colleague shared about her university’s recent search for a senior leadership position during which one candidate had an amazing day on campus and then went down in flames in the final hour.

As is the case in many senior searches, candidates spent the day meeting and meeting and meeting. At the end of their day on campus, members of the campus community were invited to a large room with theater-style seating to hear each of the candidates speak. The format was to be the same for each meeting. The search chair would introduce the candidate, the candidate would speak for 20 minutes, and the audience would be invited to ask questions for the remainder of the hour.

Candidate No. 1, a man, came to campus first. Said candidate was introduced as “Dr. Candidate,” he spoke and then took questions.

Candidate No. 2, also a man, came to campus second. He was introduced as “Dr. Candidate,” he spoke and then took questions.

Candidate No. 3, a woman, came to campus last. As he had during each visit, the search-committee chair approached the podium. This time, he said to the audience, “While I would normally introduce today’s guest as ‘Dr. Candidate,’ she specifically asked me to introduce her as ‘first name,’ so let me introduce you to ‘first name last name.’” This prompted smiles from some and raised eyebrows from others. And then it was time for the talk. Did Candidate Three stand up and begin with her prepared remarks? No, she asked everyone to move chairs into a circle “so we can really talk.” Ten chairs in a circle might not be hard. Fifty plus? Apparently awkward.

Candidate No. 3 was clearly trying to demonstrate her commitment to inclusion and show that she is a good listener, and her supporters argued that she would introduce a consensus-style form of leadership that would bring the campus together. While not disputing that she was the most accomplished scholar, her opponents criticized her for failing to behave like a leader. Some even criticized her for “acting like a girl.”

Clearly, many people have views about how a leader is expected to behave, and candidates take a risk when acting outside of expected norms. What do you think? Are we holding on to old mental models of leadership?

[1] Allison M. Vaillancourt (2011). What Does a Leader Look Like? Chronicle of Higher Education Online.

June 20, 2011, 10:40 am

Categories
General

Sponsors, Salaries, and Gender: Hitting the Glass Ceiling Hurts?

Evidence mounts on the importance of a good sponsor. MBAs entering the work force with the recommendation of a strong advocate benefitted when negotiating compensation for starting salaries, a recent Catalyst study found.

Sadly, the research also demonstrates that the glass ceiling hurts – and is increasingly costly for women over the course of their career.

Catalyst, a nonprofit focused on equity and fairness for women in the business world, surveyed more than 4,000 MBA who graduated between 1996 and 2007 from different programs around the world. Women MBAs, on average, earned $4,600 less initially than their male counterparts. The data holds across industries.

Women start with lower salaries and have fewer opportunities to increase their earnings. Statistics for 2008, for example, saw promotions resulting in an extra 21 percent in compensation for men. Promotions for women during the same period netted them an additional 2 percent. Calculations conclude that over the course of a 40-year career, women lose more than $400,000 in salary.

That’s huge for the women and for their families.

"A lot of people just suggest that if we just give it time, the gender gap will go away, but we see if you give it time the gap gets wider," says Christine Silva, a research director at Catalyst.[1] 

The Catalyst study also found that having a sponsor widens the gender pay gap: strong sponsors who advocated during the job search benefitted male students more. The men’s mentors were collectively higher up the corporate ladder. As a result, their sponsors had more clout and impact on decisions like hiring and compensation. Men with strong mentors earned on average $9,260 more in starting salary than women with the same.

So what can you do?   

Be tough. Be informed. Approach any salary negotiation with compensation information about the organization you’re talking with and about similar positions at other firms, advises Susan McTiernan, associate dean for graduate programs at Quinnipiac University School of Business.

Be realistic. Be savvy. Understand salary expectations before you begin negotiating so you’ll know when you’re being low-balled, advises Diana Bilimoria, Professor at Case Western Reserve University’s Weatherhead School of Management.

Believe that you’re worth it. This is particularly important for women.  Research by Deborah Kolb, Professor Emerita at Simmons College School of Management and author of Her Place at the Table: A Woman’s Guide to Negotiating the Five Key Challenges to Leadership Success, finds women less willing than men to negotiate for their own success. If you don’t ask for what you want, I guarantee you reduce the odds dramatically of getting it.  

Try on new behaviors. Work with a coach to develop new skills if salary negotiations are new or hard for you. Enhance your capacities to present yourself with confidence and strong executive presence. Learn to present arguments persuasively – and role play with a trusted other to prepare for a range of responses from the individual you’ll face across the table. Develop skills in asking clearly and directly for what you need. Recognize a win-win is possible for all parties involved. 

You’ll help yourself and your career by improving your skills in negotiation. You’ll also demonstrate the kind of leadership skills in doing so that warrant the salary you request.

[1] Brian Burnsed (2011). Business Schools Hope to Shatter Sturdy Glass Ceiling. U.S. News & World Report Online. June 15, 10:06 am ET.

Categories
General

Gender at Work and the Case of MIT: Progress Has its Drawbacks

12 years ago MIT acknowledged it was a hostile place for women faculty. The university became a national model in higher education for addressing gender equity. Its mea culpa encouraged other institutions to evaluate their treatment of women faculty, and the National Science Foundation and the National Academies launched major initiatives to increase opportunities for women in science.

Much has been done at MIT in the last twelve years: systematic efforts to hire women faculty have doubled their numbers; structures give women a seat on all university committees; year-long pauses in the tenure clock, full semester leaves for all with a new child in the home, campus day care, and subsidies for childcare during business travel support work-life balance; women hold important campus leadership positions (including university president); salaries, lab space, resources, research support, and teaching loads are now more equitable; and more.

Progress? Absolutely. But a recent MIT evaluation notes unanticipated consequences.

“Because things are so much better now, we can see an entirely new set of issues,” admits Hazel Sive, the Associate Dean in the School of Science who led one of the committees preparing the report.[1]

The new issues include perceptions that women’s promotions and hiring reflect affirmative action, not hard work and personal accomplishments. With so few women faculty, they can lose half their research time serving on campus committees. Tenure extensions and terms off favor male colleagues who use the time for research and lucrative consultancies, not childcare – creating new professional inequities. Lingering stereotypes keep women navigating a “narrow personality range” of not too aggressive or too soft.

What’s the learning in all this?

On gender in the workplace: we may have come a long way, baby, but we have miles to go before we sleep. Societal perceptions and organizational policies still result in unequal playing fields for women professionals. Inequity may be subtle, but it’s there. We have our head in the sand if we deny that.

On leadership, I see two key learnings. First, every leader needs strong skills in systemic thinking. Change one policy or practice, and there will be consequences elsewhere. Effective leaders anticipate the  implications of their decisions – and engage others in helping them see their own systemic blindness.

Second, strong leaders take on tough issues. We’ll never make progress on a complex issues like gender equity if leaders across organizations and sectors play it safe, or worry about making mistakes. Leadership is all about taking a stand.

MIT admitted gender inequity hasn’t been eliminated on its faculty, but there’s been progress — and there will be more. That’s something to celebrate.  

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/us/21mit.html