In recent years, there has been growing recognition of the importance of diversity, inclusion, and equity within corporate boards, particularly when it comes to gender diversity.
Despite progress in some areas, women continue to be underrepresented on corporate boards in the United States. The overall percentage of women on boards hovers between 11 and 12 percent, and this figure has barely increased over the last decade.
For health-related companies, the numbers vary significantly, with biotech companies having as few as 9.7 percent women on their boards, while hospital boards fare better at 27 percent. Even among Fortune 500 health care companies, where women make up half the workforce, only 21 percent of board members are women.
Numerous studies have demonstrated that having a more diverse board is good for business. Here are some compelling reasons why gender diversity matters:
Financial Performance: Companies with women directors on their boards tend to perform better than those without. For example, Fortune 500 companies with higher percentages of women directors reported a 42 percent greater return on sales and a 53 percent higher return on equity compared to their counterparts with fewer women.
Broadening the Talent Pool: Having women on boards helps organizations develop a broad talent pool at all levels. By diversifying the board, companies increase the chances of having board members with the necessary skills, experience, and intelligence to make informed decisions.
Strategy Development and Social Responsibility: Women bring unique perspectives to the table. They are adept at strategy development, improving corporate social responsibility, and monitoring management. Additionally, they offer valuable insights into female customers, which is essential for businesses targeting diverse markets.
Cohesiveness and Effort Norms: Women's presence on boards contributes to cohesiveness. They not only exhibit strong effort norms themselves but also intensify the board's overall effort norms. This collaborative approach enhances decision-making and organizational effectiveness.
To promote diversity, inclusion, and equity in corporate boards, organizations must prioritize intentional efforts to recruit and retain women. Below are a few steps to consider:
Transparent Recruitment Processes: Companies should ensure that their board recruitment processes are transparent and free from bias. Prioritizing the best person for the role, regardless of gender, is essential.
Board Training and Education: Regular training and education for board members can help foster an understanding of the benefits of diversity and equip them with the tools to create an inclusive environment.
Metrics and Accountability: Set measurable goals for gender diversity on boards and hold organizations accountable for progress. Regular reporting and tracking can drive change.
Supportive Policies: Implement policies that support work-life balance, mentorship, and career advancement for women. Encouraging women to take leadership roles within the organization is crucial.
In conclusion, gender diversity on corporate boards is not simply a matter of social justice—it's a strategic imperative. Organizations that embrace diversity, inclusion, and equity will reap the benefits of improved decision-making, enhanced performance, and sustainable success. Let us continue to champion the cause of women on boards and create a more equitable and prosperous future for all.
_______
References:
(1) Why Diversity Matters: Women on Boards of Directors. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ecpe/why-diversity-matters-women-on-boards-of-directors/.
(2) Why Women on Boards - Boardbound by Women's Leadership Foundation. https://bing.com/search?q=women+on+corporate+boards+importance.
(3) Why Boards Need More Women - Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2012/06/why-boards-need-more-women.
(4) Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion – Board Practices Quarterly. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/center-for-board-effectiveness/articles/diversity-equity-and-inclusion.html.
(5) How diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I) matter | McKinsey. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/diversity-wins-how-inclusion-matters.
]]>
As we celebrate Women's History Month 2024, it is a time to reflect on the incredible achievements and contributions of women throughout history. This month is a time to honor the many trailblazing women who have fought for equal rights, shattered glass ceilings, and paved the way for future generations.
Women's History Month traces its roots back to the first International Women's Day in 1911 and has since evolved into a month-long celebration of women's accomplishments and the ongoing struggle for gender equality.
In 2024, the theme for Women's History Month is “Women Who Advocate for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion.”
The theme recognizes women throughout the country who understand that, for a positive future, we need to eliminate bias and discrimination entirely from our lives and institutions, highlighting the significant strides that women have made in various fields and the work that still needs to be done to achieve true gender equality. -National Women's History Alliance
One of the most notable aspects of Women's History Month is the opportunity to learn about and honor the often-overlooked contributions of women in history. From civil rights activists like Rosa Parks and Malala Yousafzai to groundbreaking scientists like Marie Curie and Ada Lovelace, women have played a vital role in shaping the world we live in today. By recognizing their achievements, we not only pay tribute to their legacy but also inspire future generations of women to dream big and break barriers.
In addition to celebrating the accomplishments of women in history, Women's History Month is also a time to address the ongoing challenges that women face in today's society. From the gender pay gap to lack of representation in leadership roles, women still face numerous obstacles in their quest for equality. This month serves as a reminder that the fight for gender equality is far from over and that we all must continue to advocate for change.
As we honor Women's History Month in 2024, let us celebrate the remarkable achievements of women past and present, and recommit ourselves to advocate for equity, diversity, and inclusion—with a common goal of building a better future for all. By recognizing the contributions of women in all aspects of life, we can create a more inclusive and equitable society for future generations to thrive in.
To celebrate Women's History Month this year, we're offering you Special Savings at LockdIn!
SAVE 10% on everything in the online store—applies to one-time purchases only.
Use code WHM2024-SATT in the checkout at LOCKDIN.com.
*No minimum purchase requirement. This offer cannot be combined with other discounts. This code is valid through March 2024.
Drinking water every day is crucial to maintaining optimal health. Since your body is about 60 to 70% water your organs, blood and other bodily systems require quality hydration in order to function at their peak performance.
Quality Hydration refers to water that is clean and free of pollutants or contaminants, contains minerals that support proper health and is at a positive pH level.
LOCK'DIN Alkaline water contains the minerals calcium, sodium, potassium and magnesium. These minerals provide your body with a healthy boost you need to get through your day and get optimal performance from your body.
Use code WHM2024-SATT in the checkout at LOCKDIN.com.
]]>Executive board members struggle with the challenges of keeping the company at the forefront, while meeting the demands of stakeholders. They are responsible for corporate governance, strategy formulation, and accountability for the company.
Board members are required to make decisions with an overwhelming amount of information, and complexity of tasks. They are under constant pressure to provide excellent leadership for the organization, which can be mentally exhausting.
Working in stressful environments often results in board members being more susceptible to mental health issues. In some cases, they may also feel compelled to hide their stress in fear of losing credibility, which in turn can have a negative effect on the organization as a whole.
Canadian Mental Health Association says mental and physical health are fundamentally linked. There are multiple associations between mental health and chronic physical conditions that significantly impact people’s quality of life, demands on health care and other publicly funded services, and generate consequences to society.
World Health Organization (WHO) says, “there is no health without mental health.” CMHA
Addressing mental health in the boardroom requires a commitment from leadership to prioritize the well-being of employees and contractors—and to recognize the key role that mental health plays in creating a healthy and productive workplace.
There are several reasons why health and well-being are becoming increasingly important in the boardroom.
Research says healthier happier employees are more productive, engaged, and creative—which can have a positive impact on the organization's bottom line!
One study found that happy employees are up to 20% more productive than unhappy employees. When it comes to salespeople, happiness has an even greater impact, raising sales by 37%. But the benefits do not end there. Happy employees are also good news for organizations: The stock prices of Fortune’s “100 Best Companies to Work for" rose 14% per year from 1998 to 2005, while companies not on the list only reported a 6% increase. Forbes
Organizations have a responsibility to promote the well-being of their employees and contractors—and the communities in which they operate.
Click here for more information and to order—remember to enter code WHM2024-SATT in the checkout to save on your first order!
One-time purchase only. No minimum purchase requirement. Cannot be combined with other discounts. Active for the month of March 2024.
]]>
G100, www.G100.in the global group of Women Leaders affiliated to the Women’s Economic Forum, www.wef.org.in ; www.aall.in; www.wicci.in ; www.sheconomy.in ; www.bioayurveda.in appoints serial entrepreneur Valerie Dwyer as the first UK Chair for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises.
Her remit also includes sustainability, working towards UN Sustainable Development Goal No. 5, Achieve Gender Equality and empower all women and girls.
Once featured in the regional press as a ‘Troubleshooter’ problem solver, Valerie Dwyer is a Success Coach and Mentor, International Speaker and Best-Selling Author. Her track record includes founding and growing ten businesses as well as supporting and championing micro, small and medium enterprises, and leading a variety of businesses, networks and organisations through ‘boom and bust’ economies.
Her first task of her collegiate approach will be to recruit her UK Advisory Council, a team of suitably experienced businesswomen, and men, followed by a Chair for each UK Region, plus 100 England members and to facilitate the first pan UK Shared Vision for micro, small and medium enterprises.
Her Vision: A culture of thriving Micro, Small and Medium enterprises across the UK with the growth of women’s enterprises, empowerment and equality a key strand and focus.
Valerie is a past government appointee to the UK Women’s Enterprise Taskforce, charged with growing the quality and quantity of high growth potential women’s businesses. Their legacy is the £25 million match funded Aspire Fund. Her role as a Board Member of a Regional Development Agency included Champion for Women’s Enterprise and facilitating the shared vision with key partners for setting up and Chairing the regional Women’s Enterprise Ambassadors Network.
Formerly President of a City Business Club and Chair of a Chamber of Commerce, Valerie is a private Mentor and Coach to other entrepreneurs within her own business, My Wonderful Life Coach. Other organisations to benefit from her mentoring support include The Prince’s Youth Business Trust, Young Enterprise, Shell Livewire, Headstart, MC4C Youth Enterprise, LighterLife and the University of Nottingham’s Ingenuity Impact programme for Future Founders developing innovative ideas into businesses that solve the world’s greatest sustainability challenges. Valerie is also a UK Ambassador and Advocate for the global One Better World Collective.
Background Information on G100 and Founder
G100 was founded by Dr Harbeen Arora Rai - Thought Leader, Global Icon and Visionary for Women, Businesswoman, Philanthropist, Author, Humanitarian, Spiritual Seeker and Compelling Speaker.
Dr. Harbeen Arora manifests multifaceted leadership with strength & simplicity.
She is the Founder G 100 | ALL Ladies League (ALL) | Women Economic Forum (WEF) Women’s Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (WICCI) | SHEconomy | BIOAYURVEDA Chancellor, Rai University and Among Top 100 Most Reputable People on Earth (Reputation Poll 2019).
G100 Global Vision: An equal, progressive and inclusive environment for women worldwide.
G100 Mission: To provide the thought leadership and influence on what needs to be done for inclusivity, safety, economic & social empowerment of women globally, addressing genders gaps and achieving gender parity within this decade.
G100 Secretariats are established in New Delhi, Geneva, Brussels and New York and G100 is represented to the UN in Geneva and New York and to the EU in Brussels.
G100 is an action orientated Think Tank, fostering more women’s networks and global groups, and influencing and impacting global and local policies via recommendations to multilateral institutions and groupings like the UN, EU, AU, GCC, G7, G20, and governments worldwide.
G100 meetings are held across the world to meet with policymakers and influential institutions. We believe that if we can collectively focus on UN SDG 5 (Gender Equality), we can deliver on all the UN SDGs by 2030.
The G100 Secretariats collate the Policy Recommendations in a consolidated document for all the Wings of G100 and present this to the UN/EU/AU/G7/G20 and other global groups and international organisations from time to time.
Each G100 Global Chair leads for a sector. There are 100 Sectors and within these 100 Country Wings. Country Chairs are for a specific sector and lead an Advisory Council plus 100 members.
Each Global Chair and her G100 wing together represent the dreams and aspirations of 35 million women. The far-reaching changes will impact One million women by 2022, and 5 million by 2025.
G100 is a non-profit. Membership to G100 is free and by invitation only.
]]>
The problem of lack of gender diversity in the highest levels of corporations, including boards isn’t new and although the problem has long been recognized, progress to address it has been slow.
But before we can solve the problem of women in leadership, we need also to consider two other vital “L” words: women’s opportunities to contribute their labour and also the critical importance of learning in order for all women to improve their lives.
We all know the problem—across all fields of work, the higher you climb, the fewer women you see, and the corporate boardroom is no exception to this.
What is ironic is that when women get the chance to lead, they actually do so more effectively. The data is in: companies with more women on boards and in leadership positions outperform those with fewer women[1]. Firms would do well to focus explicitly on improving the gender balance of their boards for this economic imperative alone.
More women also equates to better problem solving. Blending different backgrounds, experiences and perspectives within a team leads to cognitive diversity, which can lead to better problem-solving, team performance, and innovation[2].
So women looking to make an impact should demand their rightful place on boards – because having them participate will be good for everyone. The personal rewards are many, whether you serve on a corporate board or a non-profit:
Women represent half of the world’s population, but much less than half of measured economic activity. That means that girls and women are the main victims of extreme poverty in the world today.
We know that eliminating gender gaps in economic participation can lead to big jumps in per capita income, a crucial measure of economic wellbeing. And we already know that when women are able to contribute more, the economy does better. It is women who control the purse strings, accounting for over 70 percent of consumer spending. If we want a more effective economic recovery, then we need to empower more women to generate it.
Without expanded opportunities to contribute their labour, women will not be able to act as leaders in the ways the world needs. Before we can make progress in women’s representation in leadership, we need to see more women to be lifted up from precarious employment to steady jobs that build their economic well-being. We need to help more women obtain the dream of meaningful employment, a career and ultimately the highest levels of the labour force. Then we’ll have a pipeline of women who can lead. Clearly the solutions include providing quality child-care, and making our workplaces inclusive and welcoming. There is much work to be done here.
Learning is the root of it. The education of women, of all women regardless of background, is critical for women’s success in the labour force. Without good quality education, women’s opportunities to attain economic independence are severely limited, leading to a cycle of poverty that can repeat for generations. With society facing one of the greatest challenges in generations during the global pandemic, the need for the skills to use computers and the internet has never been more important. You can’t begin to look for a job if you don’t know how to use a browser; you can’t safely attend a virtual medical appointment if you’ve never used Zoom or Google Meet.
At iSisters, an Ottawa, Canada based charity dedicated to empowering digital awareness in disadvantaged women, we believe that acquiring technology skills is a key component to job readiness.
We must continue to bet on and invest in education, especially for women. We undertake the work we do at iSisters so that our learners will either gain employment or be inspired to go on to additional education. Those are the two most important outcomes from our programs, and ones that we need to see even more often.
Why? Because, when women do well, society does better. Women are more likely to spend their resources on health and education, creating a powerful ripple effect across society and across generations. One study suggests that women invest up to 90 percent of their earnings this way, as opposed to just 30-40 percent for men. Women’s learning, including technology learning, raises us all up.
Claire Toplis — Claire is the volunteer Chair of iSisters Technology mentoring, an Ottawa-based women’s charity. iSisters Technology Mentoring designs and delivers community-based technology learning programs in partnership with community organizations that support women in need. Through technology skills development, mentoring and coaching we aim to increase earning potential and economic independence for women in need, thereby strengthening the family and the community as a whole.
Women make up almost half of the work force in the United States, and women own close to 10 million businesses. Not only are there more women joining the workforce, the working mother has become the norm, with 70% of mothers with children under 18 participating in the work force and 75% of those are employed full-time. Mothers are the primary or sole earners for 40% of households with children under 18, with these numbers projected to increase over coming years.
With numbers like these, it is increasingly important for women to find the proper work-life balance, while also investing in themselves as business women. It is also vitally important for women to know when and how to delegate tasks when their plate is full.
In order to effectively delegate, you must have a clear picture of where your time is being spent. Additionally, you should have an even better idea of where your time may be wasted. You can do this by tracking your time and tasks throughout the day.
Take a few days and track everything you’re doing, and how long it takes—you may be surprised which tasks are the biggest time drainers. This exercise can help you identify a potential list of tasks to delegate or eliminate from your day.
After you review where your time is being spent, try to recognize which items you can delegate and which you can’t. This may take some trial and error to nail down—and that’s perfectly okay. When you detail your day, mark which items are considered high priority for you personally. For example, high priority for may be something like watching your child’s soccer game. These are the things that only you can do, and outsourcing it to someone else may cause bigger issues. Being present in your kid’s life is something only you can do—hiring a nanny won’t always be the solution.
On the other hand, you should make note of those that tasks are low-priority for you personally. In other words, those tasks that need to be accomplished, but don’t necessarily carry the same weight if they aren’t completed by you. An example of low-priority tasks may be home repairs—these need to be completed, but won’t cause issues if you don’t do them yourself. Let someone else complete those low-priority tasks so that you can put your full effort into those higher-priority tasks.
One of the biggest barriers to successful delegation is not trusting that other people can complete a task as well as you can. This limits your overall ability to delegate and can lead to the inability to delegate at all. Remind yourself of the reason you’re outsourcing in the first place. Understand that, in the long haul, trusting others only serves you. When you put your faith in others instead of doubting their ability, you’ll find that it usually turns out okay.
When you delegate, try not to have a clear-cut expectation of the outcome. Assume that the task may get completed in a new way—and try to realize that’s not a bad thing. You may be surprised how great it feels not having to worry about the task at hand. Someone else’s process may be slower and their strategy may look different. The important thing is that the task is done well. Perfection can blind you to what’s truly important and will only make it harder to focus on the priorities that matter.
When you start delegating, be sure to set clear expectations and goals early and often. Don’t be afraid to spell out exactly what needs to be accomplished. If you don’t take the time to do this from the start, you’re setting yourself up for failure. Make sure your instructions are clear and concise. If something needs to change, communicate with people. Keep in mind that other people can’t read your mind. If you want something done differently, be open and honest about it.
Understand that when you first start delegating tasks, it may be harder than completing it yourself. It will take time to fully communicate your needs, and other people will need time to get comfortable taking on the project. It may seem overwhelming at first, but trust the process—you may find that your life becomes more meaningful and balanced.
About the Author: Paige Mitchell
]]>You already know this: women add much more to your executive board than the requisite leadership, industry skills and exceptional intelligence. Study after study has revealed that putting a woman on your board will statistically pay your organization back in greater revenue, team performance and employee satisfaction. Some studies postulate it's because of the innate nurturing aspect of women as a whole. Others point to personality studies which suggest women are more collaborative. These may be true. But now we have a new study that not only makes intuitive sense, it shines a light on how valuable the exceptional women leaders are today and why now, more than ever, is high time to put more women on your executive board.
According to this new study, today's executive women dance on the razor's edge, to overcome the paradoxical challenges of women at the c-level. This dance, while arguably fueled by years of unfair, sexist and old-fashioned dynamics, likewise supports a single insight about today's women executives: they are simply remarkable. We'll let activists, experts in psychology, sociology and gender equality take on the argument for societal change. The point we’re making is simple: now is your chance to take advantage of this unique time in business history, and not miss out. Act today. Bring onto your team, your board or your new company, the brilliant talent in our midst: the executive woman.
Here's why:
1) You Cannot Afford NOT to Add Today's Executive Women to Your Team. Sound dramatic? Perhaps. But with the workforce approaching gender parity, and her unparalleled talent still underutilized, you still have a chance to capture her availability right now. The question becomes: what's holding you back? Industry leaders, like GE, fast-growing companies, like Eventbrite, and others, have already taken action. They took a stand to eliminate bias and ensure hiring pipelines are upscale and leverage gender-equal teams and already are seeing real results.
2) She's Worth It. Dig into your organization's budget and pay her what she deserves, or more. She'll make the difference. Research tells us she over-delivers upon expectations, builds greater team unity and ultimately adds to your bottom line. It's that simple.
3) When She Succeeds, You Succeed - It's a time for celebrating the powerful impact of women. The global business community loves it. So be sure to celebrate her as she succeeds. Society, your colleagues and your customers will celebrate, too.
The time is now. So take action. Set those goals/initiatives in place for 2019. Don't miss out. Here's to the best year yet.
Go Jane Go is the world’s leading online community for women who travel for business, and share the vision and mission of Sit at the Table, in recognition of the extraordinary leadership qualities women possess. Visit us at www.gojanegotravels.com.
]]>Recent changes in legislation and statute on both sides of the Atlantic have focused attention on the female talent pipeline. A raft of research evidence demonstrates that having a greater degree of gender equality in organisations brings numerous benefits. To this end, several studies have been undertaken highlighting the importance of establishing and nurturing the female talent pipeline.
However, a less obvious but equally critical issue, is leakage from the female talent pipeline. Often expressed as ‘off-ramping’, loss of skilled female talent from mid-level and senior posts creates noticeable shortages from a female talent pool. It raises the question of whether we should be looking more carefully at loss during the pipeline, as well as promoting the importance of equality in all of its forms in senior roles.
Several studies have examined the underlying causes of ‘off ramping’, with research suggesting that for women in particular off ramping is multifaceted in nature. It is not simply a case of a job being untenable, but a blurring of the boundaries between personal and professional expectations unique to women in their career trajectories. A situation invariably borne by women because of societal reinforcement of the view that caring responsibilities and domestic management are ‘women’s work’ no matter how senior the woman in question, and no matter how much their partners may wish to help them.
Most people now agree that the boundaries between work and personal life have become irreconcilably blurred. Our ‘always on’ culture makes it very difficult to say no, something women in particular are known to struggle with, in the pursuit of feeling that they need to be perceived as good at everything.
If everything ultimately collides, such as the timing of reaching peak career opportunity, with elder care needs, and supporting children into young adulthood, women can find that they have little or no support from their employer - a form of benign neglect if you will. Organisations are then surprised to find their key talent has little to no energy left for work. Forced to prioritise, women, societally inured to bearing the brunt of caring responsibility, choose - albeit very reluctantly – to off-ramp.
A simple solution for organisations that care about sustaining a female pipeline is to recognise the genuine need for flexibility in the workplace. For many, the mere act of recognising that real and sincere support is available in the workplace is enough. It seems so strange that organisations will spend thousands on recruiting and training highly talented women only to allow them to slip through the net for a lack of awareness of the pressures that they face.
Arguably, if organisations wish to keep their talent, male or female, a recognition of the human aspects of a long career is vital. Potentially, this would also help raise awareness of our shifting societal priorities, and increase the social acceptance of men bearing a greater proportion of caring responsibility in order to help balance the workload. This would be a much closer reflection of gender equality, helping men to better understand the pressures that their female colleagues face, and structuring organisational policies and strategies around a far more realistic reflection of life course and changing social trends.
Susanna Whawell is the founding director of Auxilium Group has a protean career - part business, part academic, and part third sector. Her research explores the career trajectories of senior female executives and the role of organisational culture in supporting equality.
Follow Susanna on Twitter at @SusannaWhawell
]]>
The #MeToo Movement has given every organization a choice. Do nothing about workplace issues and face financial and reputational risk or proactively take action and commit to creating a zero-tolerance culture. One of the ways to make that commitment is to invest in the leadership and development of women.
Articles, including those in Harvard Business Review and Huffpost, make clear that organizations with more women in leadership have fewer incidents of workplace issues, including harassment
Having more women in leadership can change the overarching culture, resulting in an environment of trust, collaboration, and respect where harassment is simply not part of the equation.
Here are three things organizations can do to build and support women leaders:
Unconscious gender bias is widely known to be one of the impediments to women attaining leadership roles in organizations. According to the McKinsey & Company/LeanIn Women in the Workplace 2017 study, only 40% of women think promotions at their company are based on fair and objective criteria. One way to combat this is to equalize evaluation and promotion decisions. To do this, organizations must strip biases from those processes. For example, companies should have multiple, diverse evaluators discuss their views on an employee’s work as opposed to just one evaluator. This allows for different viewpoints, and requires evaluators to slow down when assessing. Also, those responsible for evaluation and promotion decisions should take an implicit association test like the one provided by Harvard University, which creates awareness of the gender biases they may be applying. Finally, compare all employee evaluation and promotion decisions for objectivity, consistency, and job-relatedness. This will highlight and allow subjective comments to be eliminated.
While leadership training for all stakeholders is important, women often face additional hurdles when positioning themselves for leadership roles. Organizations can support their rising women leaders by providing training that is specifically targeted to help women succeed. One of the most important competencies good leaders possess is confidence. In their book, The Confidence Gap, journalists Clair Shipman and Katty Kay write that while women underestimate their abilities, men overestimate them by 30%. Giving women the practical tools to be more confident can include teaching how to overcome imposter syndrome, learning to self-promote, and taking calculated risks, like asking for stretch assignments. In addition, confidence breeds authenticity, allowing women to use their voices and encouraging others to do the same. Training can also be utilized to augment leadership strengths many women already possess, like emotional intelligence. Empathy and social responsibility are highly valued leadership competencies in today’s workplace and women generally exhibit those traits more than men. Organizations can help women further develop these competencies by recognizing and rewarding their importance to vertical and horizontal relationship building. But, companies need to do more than simply train women for leadership roles. They actually have to put them into leadership positions to reap the benefits.
Women need mentors, and particularly sponsors, to rise to leadership positions. It is the professional and reputational capital that sponsors provide that can catapult women to the top. Research shows, however, that male professionals are 46% more likely to have a sponsor than women professionals. How can organizations encourage people, particularly men who often have the requisite power, to sponsor women? One way is to have the CEO, and other C-suite executives, actively and visibly sponsor several women themselves. This provides a clear message of the organization’s commitment and serves a role model function. Reward those who sponsor women - financially, through promotion or other relevant incentives. Again, this emphasizes the value-proposition around helping women get into leadership roles. And share data around specific, positive sponsor relationships and how those relationships directly resulted in the leadership success of women, and the ultimate financial success of the organization.
The importance of investing in women’s leadership cannot be underestimated, particularly in this current climate. Having women leaders not only reduces the risk of, and loss from, workplace issues, but it is essential to creating the kind of culture that results in profitability, sustainability, and competitive advantage. What choice will your organization make?
Robyn Pollack — Robyn is the CEO of Trellis Consulting LLC, a business strategy firm with an expertise in diversity and inclusion.
Trellis helps organizations attract and retain diverse talent and clients, prevent diversity crises, and maximize profitability through creation and implementation of customized D&I strategic solutions.
]]>by Jan Hills, Head Heart + Brain —
Oh well, maybe it's just the first meeting and you need to watch and learn before your contribution is heard. After all they must want to hear it. All the data says having a woman at the top table improves problem solving and even the bottom line results.
A report published by Credit Suisse last year said companies with at least one woman director received a better return on their investments compared with companies with all-male boardrooms.
And companies where women made up at least 15% of senior management were 50% more profitable than those where fewer than 10% of senior managers were female.
But as you might expect another study from a group of German, Dutch and Belgian researchers found "the mere representation of females on corporate boards is not related to firm financial performance if other factors are not considered".
If women are in the minority in a room that is hostile to them, they are unlikely to be able to have a positive effect the study suggests.
Women hold back
The evidence shows that women hold back in discussions. You might think they become more forthright with seniority, when perhaps they're no longer deferring to men. But no.
At the Yale School of Management, Victoria Brescoll has examined the idea that the more senior a woman is, the more she makes a conscious effort to rein back her verbal contribution – the reverse of how most men handle power.
In the first of two experiments, men and women were asked to imagine themselves as either the most senior figure or the most junior in a meeting. Brescoll found that, unsurprisingly those men imagining themselves as senior said they would talk more than juniors, but women imagining they were senior said they would talk the same amount as the more junior women. Asked why, the women said they didn’t want to be disliked, or to be seen as out of line.
In Brescoll’s follow up experiment, men and women rated a female CEO (fictitious) who talked more than other people. The result: both sexes viewed this woman as significantly less competent and less suited to leadership than a male CEO who talked for the same amount of time. When the female CEO was described as talking less than others, her perceived competency shot up.
Girls are socialised to be polite
Women hold back because of how they are socialised to be polite according to linguist Tannen from Georgetown University. This means they talk less in mixed sex meetings. In our research on Gender in the Workplace one of the Head Heart + Brain survey participants said: "At school I won a prize for 'manners'. Now I realise what that meant was that I kept quiet."
Girls are rewarded for taking turns, listening carefully, not swearing, being polite, and resisting interrupting – in ways we do not expect of boys. Boys' rowdy behaviour is dismissed as part of their nature, at least in Western culture. (There is some evidence that boys are expected to adopt a more polite and controlled manner in Asian societies.)
Men interrupt women
Men and women are clearly socialised to communicate differently, and this extends to signals about power in workplace hierarchies. Research on interrupting dates back to a small sample of conversations recorded at the University of California in 1975 which revealed that in 11 conversations between men and women, men interrupted 46 times, compared with women only twice.
Almost 40 years later things don’t seem to have changed: a 2014 study at George Washington University found that when men were talking with women, they interrupted 33% more often than when talking with men. Women in the study rarely interrupted their male conversation partners (an average of once in a three-minute conversation).
This is also true of corporate senior managers. Male bosses are seldom talked-over by the people who work for them, especially if the subordinate is a woman; however, female bosses are routinely interrupted by their male subordinates.
And this is not just happening in the corporate work place. Studies have found that male doctors interrupt their patients when they speak, especially female patients, but patients rarely interrupt their doctor – unless she is a woman. Women doctors make fewer interruptions, but are themselves interrupted more often.
It happens to judges too. US research from the Pritzker School of Law found that over a 12-year period, 32% of interruptions were of women justices, despite the fact that they made up only 24% of the positions on the bench. And gender was three times more influential as a factor determining interruptions than seniority.
And it can happen in forums expressly addressing diversity issues. When Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google's parent company Alphabet, was participating in Q&A session following a panel discussion on corporate diversity, Google's own Global Diversity and Talent Program manager pointed out to him that Schmidt was repeatedly interrupting the only woman on the panel, who happened to be the Chief Technology Officer to the US government.
It's all down to speaking patterns
Also useful in understanding why this happens is the research which looks at the content and purpose of men's and women's different speaking styles. Deborah Tannen (mentioned above), has explored men's and women’s speech patterns and says that men tend to adopt a "report" talk pattern, and women a "rapport" talk pattern. Men speak to determine and achieve power and status. Women talk to determine and achieve connection.
In modern Western societies the speech patterns of men (vocal, dominant and direct) are seen as the norm by which women's speaking styles (collaborative, supportive and polite) are judged. Well-intentioned men speak to women as they would to other men: they "cut to the chase," are critical or even impolite, and feel little need to spare the feelings of their listener. They're bewildered when their words spark anger or resentment (“He’s such a bully, I can’t get a word in”). And women who talk like men (briefly, forcefully and interrupting) are judged harshly for coming across as rude or bitchy.
Given that in Western societies speaking (rather than listening) is considered the power position, it is no wonder that men interrupt and take the floor more often. And given that the purpose of women's conversation may be to enhance connection, it makes sense that women are much less likely to be "disrespectful" by interrupting.
Only when women are in the majority does a different pattern of speaking emerge with women. Ethan Burris from the McCombs School of Business studied employee vocalisation at a credit union where women made up 74% of supervisors and 84% of front-line employees. He found that when women spoke up there, they were more likely to be heeded than men.
Women say important things – when we can hear them
A non-executive board member who contributed to the our (Head Heart + Brain) research said that she noticed how often the women on the board were interrupted, whereas men were listened to without interruption. And women had less to say, but it tended to be more relevant to the topic under discussion. "I sometimes feel the men speak to remind you they are there, rather than to contribute to the debate or solving the issue," she said.
And a male MD of a retail company told us that when his management committee had a mix of men and women, the women came up with more and more useful ideas and had a perspective on employee and customer issues that men lacked.
This is supported by research carried out at Brigham Young University and Princeton which showed that, at a mixed table, women take up significantly less conversation time – 75% less than men – but the decisions made can be radically different if they depend on consensus-building. "When women participated more, they brought unique and helpful perspectives to the issue under discussion," says Chris Karpowitz from Brigham Young. "We're not just losing the voice of someone who would say the same things as everybody else in the conversation."
The advantages of women's speaking
Women interrupt less, and appear to listen more: this could be encouraging a bottom-up communication of feedback and ideas. Burris has found this style generates more input from employees, harvesting more ideas and information about issues and how they could be resolved.
This inherent diversity could make for wider-ranging, more inclusive, more creative communications at work. We assume that is what is happening at those companies who do allow, even encourage senior women to speak up and contribute to solving problems and improving the bottom line.
So, if you are a women with a seat at the table but struggling to be heard here are some tried and tested methods which involve how you use your voice as well as your body language, both effective ways of signalling power.
If you're continually interrupted, have some prepared responses ready and practice holding up your hand to signal you want the interrupter to hold on. Then say your version of:
"There are a few more essential points I need to make. Could you delay a moment while I do that? "
"I know your feedback will be invaluable – can you hold that idea until I’m done?"
And lean in, literally, you are much less likely to be interrupted if you are in people's eye line. Look people in the eye and think strategically about where you sit. You want to be able to catch the eye of the chair easily, don’t site next to them sit within their eye line a little way down the table. And if it's all getting tense, use humour. One client told us when she was criticised for being too studied and not passionate about an issue she spent the rest of the meeting thumping the table before each point. It was silly she said, but people appreciated the humour.
Jan Hills is a respected leadership consultant; her company Head Heart + Brain works with leaders and organisations in the UK, Europe and Australia. She recently published Brain-savvy Woman (with her daughter Francesca). The book uses an understanding of science, mainly neuroscience to review myths about gender in the workplace and to provide practical guidance for women and men on how to be successful in their career. She also runs the Brain-savvy Woman's on-line career management programme.
by Jennifer Gilhool - Gender Economics Lab —
Whether you are a sports fan or just a casual observer, you likely are familiar with the concept of “half-time”. That point in the game when the coaches and players take stock of the first half of the game and adjust their game plan for the second half to improve their chances of victory. I am literally hours from my own “half-time” in a life that I could not have imagined when it first began.
On Saturday, I will turn 50-years old. Yes, I’m assuming a life of 100-years. There is ample evidence to support my hypothesis. My grandparents lived healthy and active lives into their 90s and my own parents are living health and active lives in their late 70s. I’ve taken relatively good care of myself and had access to high quality health care for my entire 50-years. I’m privileged.
As I reflect on the first half of my game, I am struck by the number of mistakes that immediately come to mind. I am grateful for most of them. In terms of volume, I have made more mistakes and failed far more often than I have succeeded. And, I’ve failed on a pretty grand scale too.
Perhaps the most troubling of my mistakes is the one many women make – not trusting themselves, their instincts, their capabilities. I made this mistake repeatedly. The most impactful undertaking of this mistake was the decision to leave my law practice and join an in-house counsel practice with a large corporation. This mistake was life changing.
Because of this mistake, I had opportunities that I could never have imagined for myself or my family. This mistake took me around the world and on a journey of self-discovery that continues to this day. My children – two of whom were not born when I made this mistake – both enjoy and suffer the consequences of this mistake.
Other mistakes continue to play out their story in my life and the lives touched by my mistakes. Whether those mistakes will be judged as good or misfortunes, I don’t know.
I have learned that no matter how much planning I might do, the game plays out according to its own plan. My role is to react, adjust, and, when possible – if not always advisable – intercede proactively. It is true that every action has a reaction. The game is constantly changing.
There have been accomplishments along the way. Small in scale when compared to the mistakes. But, then, at the half way mark, one cannot truly judge the outcome. The victor is still undetermined. Much can change in the second half. And, this of course, raises the question, “What is victory?”
That is the wisdom that comes with reaching “the turn”. Asking the question is far more important than the answer. Whatever victory is or isn’t won’t really be known until the very end of the game. The answer will come only if the questions are asked, answered, discarded and asked again. Wisdom lies in the mistakes. In the curiosity that springs from those mistakes. And, the spider’s web of chaos that becomes life’s beauty.
My career – like my life – has been more like a jungle gym than a ladder. To get ahead, I’ve gone backward, moved laterally, and climbed up. Eventually, I just let go. Was that defeat? Or, victory?
At the half-way mark, I find myself with more questions than answers. More disappointment than rejoicing. And, still, I believe that the mistakes – the disappointments – that I see in my past are the roots of future joy. I just don’t know it yet.
I’ve decided to embrace turning 50 with joy and optimism. I intend to make every day of this year purposeful. To embrace the mistakes of the first half-century so that I can enjoy their gifts in the second half-century.
Happy Birthday to me.
Jennifer Gilhool is a self-described recovering anxiety-ridden workaholic. She is also the Founder of the Gender Economics Lab, an attorney, former Fortune 50 executive, author, and speaker.
Jennifer Gilhool is the founder of Gender Economics Lab, a professional, focused thought leading coaching and consulting practice that cuts through popular myths about gender in the workplace. GEL distinguishes its solutions by assuring both male and female workers that smart gender literacy rewards participants with career growth and rewards companies with higher margins. GEL goes far beyond compliance issues to deliver business value for all stakeholders. Learn more at www.gendereconomicslab.com
]]>by Jennifer Gilhool - Gender Economics Lab —
Barron's recently published a piece titled "Wonder Woman: Capitalizing on Gender Equality". The article opens recounting founder and CEO of Parnassus Investments Jermone Dodson's question to CEOs, "Have you thought about adding women to the board?" The most common answer to his question: What does that have to do with business?" Mr. Dodson was asking this question thirty years ago but he may have been asking it last week.The idea of "capitalizing on gender equality" is laughable. Women haven't been able to capitalize on gender equality because gender equality doesn't yet exist. But, that isn't the point of the Barron's article. The point is that shareholders can and should capitalize on gender equality by investing in firms that are capitalizing on their commitment to gender equality. Yes, these firms do exist.
In their new book, Gender Lens Investing: Uncovering Opportunities for Growth, Returns and Impact, Joseph Quinlan and Jackie VanderBrug provide a roadmap for integrating gender into investment analysis and decision-making and reaping the resulting rewards. Investing in companies that invest in women is a winning financial strategy. Could this strategy be the missing piece to achieving gender equality at work?
There has been a steady stream of research linking women's participation in leadership, specifically at the board level, to greater returns on equity, stronger dividend payouts and lower stock volatility as compared to less gender-diverse companies. Still, women lag men in leadership and board participation. Why might gender lens investing be the missing piece? Timing.
As the Barron's article notes, the lack of women in leadership or board positions can result in costly mistakes. Lululemon Athletica lost 36% of its value in just six months after founder Chip Wilson commented that his yoga pants weren't intended for larger women. Mr. Wilson eventually resigned. And, I never bought another pair of Lululemon yoga pants again. More recently, Uber Technologies founder Travis Kalanick resigned as CEO after allegations of sexual harassment and sexism were levied against the company. And, Dave McClure, the founder of the start-up incubator 500 Startups, stepped down after The New York Times reported that he had come on to a woman who was applying for a job at his firm.
Much of the talk about achieving gender equality at work has centered around achieving a "critical mass" of women on the board of directors and in the C-Suite. A critical mass being thirty-three percent. Is this really possible? Again, the answer appears to depend on timing. And, again, the timing seems to be pretty good.
In the United States, women are the most educated and the most skilled members of the labor force. Women closed the skills gap with men earlier in this decade. Women have been out-pacing men in college degrees at every level for more than a decade. This isn't just a U.S. trend either. Globally, girls out-perform boys academically and earn more college degrees than men. Women have never been better positioned competitively to take on the C-Suite.
Women's financial power is also growing. Globally, the female economy was $15 trillion in 2015 or 40% larger than the economy of China. Indeed, women are the second largest economy in the world, second only to the United States. Still, women lag men in earnings by a global average of 16%. Globally, women do more than double the amount of unpaid work as men, a global average of 4.5 hours per day. This is what Melinda Gates called "time-poverty" in 2016, labeling it a universal gender problem. It is also a universal economic problem, representing $10 trillion in lost output according to the OECD.
Additional opportunities for growth remain. Female labor participation rates lag men. Increasing female labor participation rates increases the opportunity for GDP growth. For example, if women participated in the paid economy at the same rate of men, $28 trillion would be added to the annual global GDP by 2025. Hardly small change.
So, to every woman wondering why are we still having this conversation, let me say this -- the end is near. Perhaps for the first time ever (we should check with an actual historian), women hold a competitive advantage when it comes to power, influence and opportunity to shape the future. And, there are signs that men agree.
Investment firms are increasingly considering environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors when making investment decisions and this includes women. Women drive or are a significant factor in an organization's commitment and follow through on environmental, social and governance related initiatives and priorities. The greater the number of women on the Board, for example, the stronger the commitment to green priorities and the more likely those priorities are sustained during economic downturns.
Perhaps I am overly optimistic about women and the future. Perhaps I simply want to see more leadership opportunities and better odds for sustaining women in those opportunities because my children are in and preparing for college. Or, perhaps, it is my personal bias that places rose colored glasses over my eyes. Whatever the reason, I continue to believe that this is the century of the woman and that the nation of women is the one true emerging nation on the world stage.
Jennifer Gilhool is a self-described recovering anxiety-ridden workaholic. She is also the Founder of the Gender Economics Lab, an attorney, former Fortune 50 executive, author, and speaker.
Jennifer Gilhool is the founder of Gender Economics Lab, a professional, focused thought leading coaching and consulting practice that cuts through popular myths about gender in the workplace. GEL distinguishes its solutions by assuring both male and female workers that smart gender literacy rewards participants with career growth and rewards companies with higher margins. GEL goes far beyond compliance issues to deliver business value for all stakeholders. Learn more at www.gendereconomicslab.com
]]>by Jennifer Gilhool - Gender Economics Lab —
This past weekend I engaged in civil disobedience to voice my support for social movements that are important to me. I took with me two friends – both women, both middle-aged and both virgins. Civil disobedience virgins. (I have no comment on any other virginal status they may or may not hold.)
It’s exciting to pop your civil disobedience cherry. There is a kind of adrenaline rush that you experience similar to the kind you feel when competing. You bond with your fellow marchers through stories, shared experiences, and a commitment to a cause in which you believe regardless of its popularity. It’s a rush.
Civil disobedience is a sacred act if not a duty entrusted to the citizens of a Democracy. Thomas Jefferson said it was self-evident that all men are created equal and that they enjoy certain unalienable rights bestowed upon them by their Creator. Further, these unalienable rights are secured for men by governments that are created by men who through their consent entrust the government with power. In other words, but for the consent of the people, the government has no power.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed . . ."Declaration of Independence, United States of America, 1776Civil disobedience, then, is the act of disobeying the law on the grounds of moral or political principle. It is an attempt to influence society to accept a dissenting point of view. The classic treatise on this topic is Henry David Thoreau's "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience," which states that when a person's conscience and the laws clash, that person must follow his or her conscience. The 2016 presidential election has left many U.S. citizen questioning the justness, wisdom, and objectivity of our government. The result can be seen and felt on the streets and in the cafes of America .
There is new [older] generation of protestors. Many are female. Many are over 40, even over 50. They bring their children and grandchildren to protest rallies and marches. They are every color, size, and shape. They represent a generation of women that has fought for equality and been denied. They represent hope for a future that succeeding generations of women believed was already here. At least, they did until Nov 8. They represent the next 7 generations.
The United States Constitution is based on the Great Law of Peace and the governing principles of the Iroquois Confederacy, a united of six Native American Tribes under a single, over-arching governing system. Indeed, the U.S. Constitution outlines three branches of government that are the same three branches first instituted by the Iroquois Confederacy. Among the few changes made by Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison to the governing principles set forth by the Iroquois Confederacy was the decision to exclude women from the governing process. A mistake that lingers to this very day.
Native American women in the Confederacy were entrusted with nominating leaders, implementing justice (e.g., serving a role similar to the Supreme Court), holding and passing title to land, and exercising veto power over Confederacy decisions such as the decision to go to war. Women were entrusted with these powers because of the unique position as women not despite it. Women have and raise children. Accordingly, they are best positioned to identify future tribal leaders and to hold them accountable for their actions. Further, women take a long term view when making decisions whereas men make decisions focusing on shorter term consequences. Women consider the next seven generations, which is the essence of the Great Law of Peace.
My friends popped their respective cherries at the Women Marching Against Hate event held in Seattle, Washington. The marchers represented every walk of life. There were millennials, Gen-Xers, baby boomers and even Gen-Z marchers. There were babies in strollers, children, teenagers, mothers, fathers, and grandparents. Marchers identified as cisgender, transgender, gender-queer, straight, gay, lesbian, bi, pan-sexual, queer, Latino, black, white, Asian, India, religious and non-religious marchers. All were marching against hate. All were marching for the next seven generations.
As we marched through Seattle, people in cars honked their horns in support, people on the streets cheered, some cried openly upon seeing the long and winding line of marchers. There were people in window holding their children and babies pointing and clapping. The atmosphere was positive, empowering, and hopeful. It was a great time.
On Sunday, my friends and I attended a meeting of Pantsuit Nation also in Seattle. Pantsuit Nation started as a movement to encourage women to wear pantsuits on November 8th (you know why). It has quickly grown from a private Facebook group into a national movement. Pantsuit Nation fosters connections and builds empathy among its members through story telling, It also encourages members to take action, specifically thoughtful, forward ¬thinking actions ranging from confronting a bully, to calling a senator, donating money to an important cause or extending a simple kindness to another person.
These events in and of themselves may seem inconsequential, but they are not. Civil disobedience has a long history of impacting social values and influencing government policies and actions. Take for example:
1. The Boston Tea Party -- citizens of the colony of Massachusetts trespassed on a British ship and threw its cargo (tea from England) overboard, rather than be forced to pay taxes without representation to Britain. This was one of the many acts of civil disobedience leading to the War for Independence, establishing the United States of America as a sovereign state.
2. Anti-war movements have been a part of U.S. history since Thoreau went to jail for refusing to participate in the U.S. war against Mexico in 1849. More recent examples were the nationwide protests against the war in Viet Nam, U.S involvement in Nicaragua and Central America, and the Gulf War.
3. The Women's Suffrage Movement lasted from 1848 until 1920, when thousands of courageous women marched in the streets, endured hunger strikes, and submitted to arrest and jail in order to gain the right to vote.
4. Abolition of Slavery including Harriet Tubman's underground railway, giving sanctuary, and other actions that helped to end slavery.
5. The Introduction of Labor Laws and Unions. Sit-down strikes organized by the IWW, and CIO free speech confrontations led to the eradication of child labor and improved working conditions, established the 40-hour work week and improved job security and benefits.
6. The Civil Rights Movement led by Martin Luther King, Jr. and others, included sit-ins and illegal marches which weakened segregation in the south.
7. The Anti-Nuclear Movement stimulated by people like Karen Silkwood and the Three Mile Island nuclear power accident, organized citizens throughout the country into direct action affinity groups, with consensus decision-making and Gandhian nonviolence as its core. Massive acts of civil disobedience took place at nuclear power facilities across the country, followed by worldwide protests against first-strike nuclear weapons, occupying military bases, maintaining peace camps, interfering with manufacture and transport of nuclear bombs and devices, marching, sitting in, blockading and otherwise disrupting business as usual at nuclear sites.
8. Environmental and Forest Demonstrations with acts of civil disobedience such as sit-ins, blockades, tree sits and forest occupations, have emerged in the last decade, prompted by the continuing mass clear cuts and destruction of the forest ecosystem and widespread environmental consequences.*
Civil disobedience may not result in short term changes but long terms changes inevitably result as governments recognize and conform to the will of the people. A living and fully functioning democracy demands the participation of the governed. Without their active participation, government can easily become destructive appealing to our baser instincts and fears rather than aspiring to our hopes and dreams. It is up to us as citizens to point the way for our government not the other way around.
Cynics will sneer at the sentiments conveyed here and argue that nothing will come of these silly movements led by women. The women and men who participate in these movements, however, are not expecting short-term results but seek long term, systemic societal changes for future generations. They remember how the British laughed at the colonists who spilled British tea into Boston Harbor. We all know how that turned out.
*For more, see Democracy Web at http://democracyweb.org/node/16
Jennifer Gilhool is the Founder and CEO of the Gender Economics Lab, a sustainable human capital consulting firm and author of Sheryl Sandberg, China & Me, a real life lean-in story about a woman executive at one of America’s most iconic companies (available on Amazon.com and in China in Mandarin on Amazon.cn). Learn more at www.gendereconomicslab.com.
]]>
by Jennifer Gilhool - Gender Economics Lab —
Sustainability refers to an organization’s ability to sustain earning over time. At the end of the 20th Century as enormous populations like China, India and Brazil began to enter the global economy and climate change became a more mainstream topic, sustainability took on a broader definition. Institution and governments began talking about “sustainable development,” which is defined as the ability to meet the needs of the current generation without compromising the next generation’s ability to meet their needs.
In truth, this is not a new idea. It is the very idea upon which our form of government was fashioned. Sustainability is as applicable to governance as it is to business. And, it is a lens through which we can view and even begin to understand how we, as a nation, came to this turbulent and unsettling time in our history.
Benjamin Franklin was an admirer of the Iroquois Confederacy or the Six Nations. He and Thomas Jefferson borrowed from the Confederacy’s Great Binding Law also known as the Great Law Of Peace (Gayanashagowa)(1) when drafting the United States Constitution. Under the Great Binding Law, the Confederacy established a three-part governing system consisting of executive, legislative and judicial branches. This should sound familiar to virtually every American.
Our founding fathers, however, did not adopt the Great Binding Law and its principals in its entirety. Changes were made. Women were excluded from participating in government. The issue of slavery was ignored. A representative democracy (a republic) was chosen over a participatory democracy.[2]
The effects of those decisions can be seen today. Some are good and some are less good.
The core teaching of the Great Law of Peace is that peace is the law, and the law is for peace. The Great Law of Peace provides:
“[E]very deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations.”This is the essence of sustainability: making decisions with an eye toward the impact of that decision on the future. Short-term gains at the expense of long-term success are antithetical to the Great Law of Peace. This idea hardly requires explanation. When men (and women) make decisions based solely on optimizing personal gain, they not only sacrifice opportunities to optimize sustained success for the larger group but they risk survival itself. Evidence of this fact can be found throughout history.[3]
We don’t need to be historians to understand this point however. Every year, millions make a New Year’s resolution to lose weight. Some spend hours in the gym working out while others might cut back drastically on calories. Through sheer will, both groups are able to sustain this effort for six to eight week and some see results. Virtually all, however, experience fatigue and dissatisfaction with the speed of their weight loss as compared to the effort invested. Consequently, most give up. We quit because we expect long-term results in the short-term. We focus on only one aspect of weight-loss: exercise or calories and ignore the behavioral aspects that must also change to support our goal.
Sustaining long-term earnings while protecting the next seven generations encompasses more than protecting the planet. Sustainable decision-making requires leaders to focus on:
Focusing on only one of these goals risks compromising one or more of the remaining goals. Sustainability is holistic and requires leaders as well as individuals to consider not only specific needs but also the interaction of those needs in order to achieve the broader goal of protecting for the needs of succeeding generations.
The Iroquois Confederacy has no formal legal system. Rather, the core-governing tenant, peace, and its enforcement are entrusted to members of the Iroquois Confederacy best positioned to ensure peace for future generations: Women.
Tom Porter of the Mohawk Bear Clan explained why women are entrusted with this power:
“Women deserve 90 percent of the credit in raising the children. Oh, we men do a little. We might change a diaper or two, but in the middle of the night, when a baby cries and we men are sound asleep, momma gets up and rocks the babies back to sleep. The mothers watch the children carefully as they are growing up. The ones who are kind, unselfish, and always helping others are considered for future leadership positions. Honesty is the first requirement for leadership.”
Mohawk Bear Clan Chief Tom Porter, 1986
Iroquois women are vested with this power because of their womanhood not in spite of it. Contrast this with our society – even today – and the way powerful women are discussed, assessed, and depicted. One society clearly values and protects diversity while the other diminishes and fears diversity.
Some may argue that this is an over-simplification of a complex issue but I disagree. For all of the accomplishments of the founding fathers, our failure, as a nation, to achieve the promise of opportunity and freedom for all people regardless of identity status is rooted in our founding fathers’ failure to consider the impact of expedient decision-making on the next seven generations as well as succeeding generations to timely recognize and resolve that mistake.
Our founding fathers ignored the pleas of women to include them in governance thereby granting them equal status with men. They also remained silent on race equality by failing to address the divisive issue of slavery, leaving that to be resolved by later generations.
In contrast, the Iroquois Confederacy values the diverse points of view of its community members. For example, women are entrusted with significant responsibilities within their society and government:
It is beyond dispute that our nation has work to do on recognizing, valuing and protecting the diversity through which all of us manifest our identities and traditions.
Our nation is still young at 240 years old. However young we may be, we are still nearly 10-generations removed from our founding fathers and their first decisions for us as a nation. Today, we feel the impact of many of those decisions as well as succeeding decisions by future generation of leaders. Not all of the fruit born of those decisions is sweet, as this election season has demonstrated.
A focus on sustainability and all of its elements is essential to achieving long-term success not only as a business but also as a society. We have the opportunity today to make decisions that can deliver a more prosperous, a more harmonious, a more peaceful tomorrow for future generations. It is incumbent upon us to look beyond ourselves toward the next seven generations so that we might deliver peace as well as prosperity to them.
Jennifer Gilhool is the founder of the Gender Economics Lab, a consulting firm specializing in sustainable human capital. Jennifer is former sustainability and regulatory affairs executive with Ford Motor Company, author of Sheryl Sandberg China & Me, and an attorney.
]]>
by Jennifer Gilhool - Gender Economics Lab —
Wonder Woman is an icon to some and to others, she is a scourge. Whether you love her or hate her, the fact remains that Wonder Woman is not real. And, for this reason alone, Wonder Woman should not be the symbol of female empowerment for the United Nations or anyone else.
Disagree?
Consider the recent comments of Maher Nasser, the man responsible for brokering the deal with Warner Brothers and DC Comics to install Wonder Woman as Honorary Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women and Girls. Nasser grew up reading comics and says that he was inspired by Wonder Woman’s fight for justice,
"For me these values [of truth, justice, and peace] are what brought me to the United Nations.”
But when asked what Wonder Woman represents for him at this particular moment, after women began voicing differing views about the character, Nasser ruefully chuckled, that Wonder Woman is simply,
“A big headache, now."
Indeed.
The moment Wonder Woman moved from the imagination and fantasy world of men, she became a headache. It isn’t a coincidence that when women began voicing a dissenting point of view regarding the mythology of Wonder Woman that she became less attractive and more of a headache for the men marketing her not as a beacon of female empowerment but as a commercial object (a movie) and a public relations campaign.
Wonder Woman is the product of a man’s imagination. The man, William Moulton Marston, may have had the best of intentions when he created the first female superhero but intentions have little to do with impact. For many women, the impact of Wonder Woman is decidedly mixed.
Since her inception in 1941, men have carefully controlled the image of Wonder Woman. Even now, Nasser explains that he and his team worked with the artists of DC Comics to “tone down the image” of Wonder Woman that will be used in the United Nations campaign,
"The campaign art that we are working with ... doesn't have that caricature image of the wrong stereotype of what a woman should look like."
Nasser points out that the United Nations’ version of Wonder Woman only shows Wonder Woman from the waist up. Additionally, and presumably to mitigate the highly sexualized image, the DC Comics artists draped Wonder Woman’s cape around her neck and shoulders to minimize the focus on her ample breasts, which are more prominently displayed in other versions of the cartoon character. Further, Nasser says that the social media campaign the United Nations is planning will emphasize Wonder Woman's girl power credentials, what he calls "the essence of the character."
"The focus [of the United Nations] was on her feminist background, being the first female superhero in a world of male superheroes and that basically she always fought for fairness, justice and peace."
The United Nations own defense of their selection reveals the inherent flaw in their thinking. It also reveals the problem of having men choose role models for girls and women. Men simply don’t understand the experience of women in the world. That isn’t a judgment. Men live their lives as men not as women.
When you feel compelled to “tone down” the sexually charged caricature image of a woman in an effort to avoid “the wrong stereotype of what a woman should look like,” you are heading into troubled waters. In choosing a one or, at best, two dimensional cartoon character as an aspirational role model for girls and women, the United Nations has reduced girls and women to something less than fully human and asked them to aspire to that less than human image.
In the world of Wonder Woman, women aspire to peace and not war. Women do not carry weapons or fight for themselves but only for others. Women are nurturers not combatants. Women are pacifiers and peace-makers – the very attributes that hold women back from achieving success in business, gaining access to capital, or being taken seriously on the public stage. Women – in the United Nations version of Wonder Woman – don’t even have legs. They are incomplete.
In her original incarnation, William Marston insisted that in every episode Wonder Woman be tied up or otherwise bound by the [male] villain. Marston contended that this was homage to the suffragette movement and women chaining themselves together but that image is far different from the image of a [male] villain tying up or otherwise binding a woman to an object. The iconography of a woman in bondage is complex and violent. It can’t be denied that this imagery plays into dominant-submissive fantasies and calls to mind acts of violence against women, including rape and human trafficking. While we may be more aware of these images and their meanings today, the imagery was as titillating in the mid to late 20th century as it is today. Perhaps, more so, given its forbidden nature.
Warner Brothers and DC Comics approached the United Nations to “sell” Wonder Woman as the Honorary Ambassador for the Empowerment of Girls and Women as part of the celebration of her 75th Anniversary and the launch of its movie (scheduled for release on June 2, 2017). Much like the original public relations work done by Wonder Woman in 1941 designed to combat the backlash of too Germanic looking and weapon-carrying male superheroes, the United Nations finds itself in need of its own PR campaign with women. Foregoing the opportunity to name the first female Secretary General to the United Nations from a stellar candidate list of seven women, including a former Prime Minister, Antonio Guterres was selected for the post. Women were outraged.
A female cartoon superhero will not soothe the ache symbolized by the United Nations indifference toward placing women in powerful positions within its own organization. Women do not aspire to be cartoon characters any more than men do. Would we name Spider Man as Honorary Ambassador for the Empowerment of Boys and Men? I don’t think so.
Women are not children. Girls need real role models – role models who are complex, flawed human beings capable of great achievement and great mistakes. Women and girls need role models who look like them, think like them, behave like them, and struggle like them. Women and girls do not need false idolatry. The media is already full of these images. Frankly, the United Nations should know better.
As a cartoon character, Wonder Woman is perfect. She can run in go-go boots and a bandeau top and never experience sore feet or aching (or sagging) breasts. Her hair is never out of place and her make-up is never creased by perspiration. Through the magic of movie making, the cartoon character now comes to life in the form of a beautiful, leggy actress propped up by a personal chef, a personal trainer, personal stylist, a hair and make-up team, and air-brushing. Though, she likely makes less than her male superhero counterparts. The Wonder Woman of television and the movies is no more real than the cartoon version. She is unobtainable.
And, that is the problem.
Using an unobtainable image of a woman to serve as a role model and aspirational leader for girls and women is dangerous and irresponsible. Intentionally or unintentionally, the United Nations has reinforced the very “wrong stereotypes” it claims it sought to avoid. The U.N. is paying homage to a male-idealized version of a woman and it is asking women and girls to join in. Would it not be better to offer a real woman as a warrior for peace and justice, as a symbol of female power and fortitude, as an emblem of constructive consternation? Is it not the complexity of being human that makes human achievements so inspiring? If this is true for men, then why can it not also be true for women?
In my own country, the United States, the persistence of the double standard could not be more evident. The presidential election process makes clear that the double standard is deeply rooted even in the most developed nations of the world. Our electorate demands Hillary Clinton (and other female candidates) be free from sin and to be the best example of her gender before it will support her candidacy for President of the United States.
We repeatedly turn a blind eye to the indiscretions of men. We proffer ridiculous excuses for their behavior or brush them aside with a variant of the “boys will be boys” explanation. Worse, far too often we blame the women in their lives for their indiscretions. Despite these failings, we do not disqualify men to hold the highest office in the United States. We do not require them to be the best example of their gender.
Whether you agree or disagree with her policies, Hillary Clinton is a real human being. She is flawed. She has inspired millions around the world, her achievements are as great as her mistakes, she is complex and sometimes difficult to love but she is real. If Hillary Clinton is elected President of the United States, the United States will have elected a flawed woman to the most powerful position in the world – in the same way that the American electorate has elected flawed men to this position 44 previous times in its history.
Serena Williams is real. Sylvia Plath is real. Beyoncé is real. Aung San Suu Kyi is real. Margaret Cavendish, Elizabeth Garret Anderson, Sojourner Truth, Maya Angelou and Michelle Obama are all real women. Wonder Woman is a fantasy. The most important thing we can do to empower girls and women is to recognize and celebrate the achievements powerful, complex and, sometimes, controversial girls and women. It is time to move beyond the fantasy and toward reality.
Jennifer Gilhool is a self-described recovering anxiety-ridden workaholic. She is also the Founder of the Gender Economics Lab, an attorney, former Fortune 50 executive, author, and speaker.
Jennifer Gilhool is the founder of Gender Economics Lab, a professional, focused thought leading coaching and consulting practice that cuts through popular myths about gender in the workplace. GEL distinguishes its solutions by assuring both male and female workers that smart gender literacy rewards participants with career growth and rewards companies with higher margins. GEL goes far beyond compliance issues to deliver business value for all stakeholders. Learn more at www.gendereconomicslab.com
]]>
by Jennifer Gilhool - Gender Economics Lab —
For every girl and woman in the United States, Thursday night is a big night regardless of whether or not you are a Hillary Clinton supporter. Why? Because on Thursday night, a “bad” girl will accept the nomination for President of the United States as a candidate of major political party.
Yes. It’s historic. No other woman has ever been nominated for president by a major American political party. Yes. It’s a sign that American society is (finally) ready to accept a woman in a powerful – arguably the most powerful – leadership position. Yes. It’s a milestone. One of many milestones on the way to achieving gender equity – like securing the right to vote, gaining access to safe and reliable birth control, and serving in any and all combat positions in the military.
But, the really big deal is that the American public doesn’t really like the nominee. Hillary Clinton is a polarizing figure for many Americans. Indeed, according to Politico, Clinton’s approval rating is only 45% compared to 48% for Donald Trump (who appears to be riding a post-convention boon). According to a CBS poll, the two nominees are in a disapproval dead heat at 42%. For me this is the real story. Americans aren’t simply nominating a woman for President of the United States; Americans are nominating an unlikable woman for President of the United States.
Sure, there has been a lot discussion about the rise of Donald Trump and his own disapproval ratings. But, Americans have long been comfortable with unlikeable men. The standards for male and female behavior continue to be different in America and around the world. The headlines are full of unlikeable men from Bill Cosby to Roger Ailes to Donald Trump. These aren’t just any men. These are standard bearers: a celebrity icon, a CEO, and a presidential nominee. We look the other way at poor, inappropriate and even illegal behavior of men until the noise surrounding that behavior drowns all other potentially acceptable explanations.
For myself and many other women who have been told to soften their sharp elbows, watch their tone, wait their turn, or keep their opinions to themselves, Hillary Clinton’s nomination is redemption. The fact is that men don’t have to be likable. At least, men don’t have to choose between likeable and being competent because men enjoy a much broader range of acceptable behavior than women enjoy.
As a man, you can swipe at people with your sharp elbows, pick your vocal tone, interrupt, and shout your opinions from virtually any podium and rise to CEO, become a celebrity icon, or even President of the United States. Indeed, if you are a man, you can be wholly unlikable and incompetent and find yourself on the top of the presidential ticket. But until this very moment in history, not even a competent and likable woman had a realistic shot at a major U.S. political party presidential nomination.
The research on unconscious bias makes clear that men are more likely to be promoted on the basis of promise or potential compared to women, who must repeatedly prove their performance to even be considered for performance. Even when a woman is a proven performer, she is likely to lose out to a less qualified man if she is perceived to be unlikable. Further, for a competent and likeable woman, a single misstep can be a career-ender. We don’t give women second chances in the same way that we give them to men because we don’t give women the presumption of competence in the way that we give it to men.
So, while Clinton is arguably the most qualified candidate to seek the office of the presidency in a generation (if not ever), her nomination was anything but a lock. First, she is a woman. Second, she is perceived to be cold and unlikable. Third, she previously sought the Democratic nomination and lost. And fourth, Bernie Sanders.
The success of the Sanders campaign was a surprise to many, including Sanders’ Senate colleagues. Bernie Sanders is not as qualified as Hillary Clinton to be president but that didn’t hurt is candidacy or his likeability. Bernie Sanders is a self-proclaimed socialist who became a Democrat for the purpose of mounting a presidential bid. While some might see such a transformation as rudely opportunistic, it hasn’t hurt Sanders’ standing as a candidate. Indeed, some have argued that the Sanders' campaign was made possible because of the gender of his opponent.
In other words, because the nominating race featured a female candidate, an alternative male candidate was able to mount a campaign because his gender allowed him to do everything his female opponent his is not allowed to do. Bernie Sanders’ campaign was possible because he isn’t required or expected to be nice, smile, speak in hushed tones, know his place, or soften his sharp elbows. Bernie Sanders is permitted to speak his mind in whatever manner he chooses, in the location he chooses, and cloaked in the mantle of the political party he chooses without regret or remorse.
And, while the Sanders campaign sparked a national movement in its own right, the nomination and election of a “bad girl” to the most powerful political office in the world will [further] free women and girls across the globe from the real and perceived shackles on their ambitions and purpose. And by bad girl, I mean that as a woman you can earn millions of dollars and not apologize for it. You can make mistakes along the way and still get back up, fight again and win. You don’t have to smile to make others feel comfortable or tamp down your tone. You can embrace every nuance of yourself, every aspect of your personality, display your intelligence and even your own brand of confidence and achieve your ambitions.
Not every girl wants to grow up to be President of the United States or CEO or a celebrity icon. Nor does every boy. The point is that before Thursday night the opportunities for girls and boys were not the same no matter what we told ourselves. Before Thursday night, boys could choose who and what they wanted to be when they grow up. Girls, however, were still choosing between who and what – either being liked or being competent.
For impolite, unlikable, out-spoken, sharp-elbowed bad girls like me, the nomination of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for President of the United States is about much more than making history. It’s about creating a future where girls and women – like boys and men – don’t have to choose between being liked and being competent. You can be both. You can be either. You can also be neither. The possibilities are endless.
Jennifer Gilhool is a self-described recovering anxiety-ridden workaholic. She is also the Founder of the Gender Economics Lab, an attorney, former Fortune 50 executive, author, and speaker.
Jennifer Gilhool is the founder of Gender Economics Lab, a professional, focused thought leading coaching and consulting practice that cuts through popular myths about gender in the workplace. GEL distinguishes its solutions by assuring both male and female workers that smart gender literacy rewards participants with career growth and rewards companies with higher margins. GEL goes far beyond compliance issues to deliver business value for all stakeholders. Learn more at www.gendereconomicslab.com
]]>
This week, I began thinking about how I spend my time.
I want to enjoy being with my family, and I have goals and objectives I want to accomplish with my work. I have a strong interest in green living initiatives and I want to exercise and mentor young leaders. I don’t want to give up travel or studying to improve my French.
For me, all of these are worthwhile endeavors. However, when I am doing one of the above, I begin to think about doing the others. Maybe I just think too much, but I will leave mindfulness for another time.
So, I went through an exercise I found valuable, which I want to share with you. if you want to download it as a spreadsheet and revise it for your own use, this is the Google Docs link.
Maybe it will give you some ideas about how to think about and manage your own valuable time. After completing this exercise, I thought less about what else I could/should be doing because I knew how much time I wanted to devote to each important area of my life.
I began by asking myself what I want to BE and then determined how much of my time I wanted to devote to each part of my being. I decided I want to BE a loving family member and friend, healthy, well rounded, a mentor, etc.
Using an Excel Spreadsheet, I listed each of the desired personal attributes and included activities that amplified or represented each of them. The spreadsheet SUM function made the simple calculations faster and easier.
I then chose an arbitrary percentage of time I want to spend working to be and become those things, making sure that combined percentages equaled 100. I can see that those percentages will change over time.
With eight personal attributes for me, each would take approximately 12% of my time IF I want each of them to have equal weight. However, spending time with my family and friends is more important to me than becoming fluent in French, so I may assign 1% to spending time with family and friends and % to learning French. You get the picture. Then, I multiplied the number of hours in my week by the percentage of time I want to spend being or becoming that person. That gave me the number of hours each week I will feel comfortable engaging in each of the activities I believe is important to being the person I want to be. I decided to use 90 hours per week for the number of allotted hours. So, if I am willing to spend 8% of my allotted time to practice and improve my French, I would feel comfortable taking about seven hours a week for my French study program and happily devoting about 14 hours to family and friend time. Your personal attributes and percentages will be very different from mine, but this formula can be useful.
It gets a little more complicated when activities overlap. This weekend, for example, I picked up most of the Spanish moss, tree limbs, twigs and other debris that fell from our oak trees after recent severe storms here.
With lots of bending and walking, I filled five large garbage containers. I can assign that time to BEING healthy and BEING a gardener/ homemaker (a term I don’t like to use, but it fits this context.)
Another overlap could occur if I decide to go with a family member or friend to Ringling Museum or to a play at the Asolo. Recognizing that activities overlap gives more time in each desired area.
After going through this exercise and feeling a little more relaxed, I began looking for resources that could help to understand the issues and implement the plan to improve work/ life balance, which I prefer to think of as work/life satisfaction.
These are some of the best resources I found on the topic (Affiliate Links)*:
Life Matters: Creating a Dynamic Balance of Work, Family, Time, and Money. Using the four quadrants of urgent, not urgent, important and unimportant, Roger Merrill, who co-wrote First Things First with Stephen R. Covey (Seven Habits of Highly Effective People) provides a framework for managing family, money, work and time. This 2003 book is a thoughtful and thorough look at how to enhance the quality of family life and focus on the important tasks at work.
Brigid Schulte, a Washington Post reporter, wrote Overwhelmed: How to Work, Love, and Play When No One Has the Time. It focuses on stories about working women and research on work/ life balance. It offers insights into why we may feel overwhelmed and offers some suggestions for combating the problem.
Taking a completely different perspective is Michael Anderson, who wrote The Experiment: Discover a Revolutionary Way to Manage Stress and Achieve Work-Life Balance. Anderson tells about interactions between a business owner and his personal coach. Using a story to focus on Awareness, Response and Compassion, the book tackles how to solve the problems of living a happier life and being more productive.
I also researched some apps that may be useful.
Balanced - Goals & habits motivation for better life balance - Jaidev Soin is a free app for iPhone that acts as a reminder to do things you choose to do. Categories allow you to write your own goals or choose from topics such as Myself, Fitness, Appreciation, Creativity, Confidence or Discovery. After five choices each day, there is a charge.
Success Wizard - Life Planner Goal Setting Coach and Daily Habits Self Help Coaching - Success Wizard, Inc. offers a large and interesting variety of habits in each of the following categories: Work & Business, Health & Wellness, Love & Relations, Money & Finances, Family & Friends, Spirituality & Faith, Recreation & Lifestyle, and Personal Growth. It also includes areas to promote rituals, analyze performance and progress and write in a journal. With daily email reminders and notifications, it helps you get and stay on track. An upgrade to Habits Pro allows you to set and schedule unlimited Habits and Rituals.
I downloaded these apps and was very impressed with both of them. The first is a little more fun with icons and easy choices. The second seems to be a more serious and thoughtful look at progress and performance. Based on my reviews of user comments and my own experience with the apps, I would recommend both of them…after you go through the exercise I mentioned above.
Chronos is another free app from iTunes I downloaded that lets you see how much time you are spending in each area of your life. It also allows you to set goals and track your progress. It uses a GPS to track your location and automatically tells you how much time you spend at each. I did not like the fact that you have to log in with a Facebook account and the goals are limited, but you may want to check it out. Chronos - Track your time automatically - Chronos Mobile Technologies Inc.
There are other books and apps you may want to consider, but these caught my eye because of their content, depth and usability.
Here's to a more balanced life for all of us.
About Lyn Boyer — Lyn is a leadership coach, consultant and online learning guide helping new and experienced leaders and teams maximize their possibilities. Previously, she served as a school and district level administrator and adjunct professor. She lives on the beautiful West Coast of Florida with her husband and two rescue dogs, Sam and Alex.
*This post contains affiliate links, which means I receive limited compensation if you make a purchase using a link. Although compensated, all opinions are my own. A portion of all proceeds from this site goes to support Women of Tomorrow Mentor & Scholarship Program, which holds a Charity Navigator score of 93% and Young Women’s Leadership Network with a score of 92.82%. Both these organizations support you women and leadership, topics very close to my heart.
by Jennifer Gilhool - Gender Economics Lab —
No matter how hard I try, I can’t shake the feeling that washed over me when I heard those words “not sufficiently charming.” While I am not entirely sure how, I did manage to contain the flood of emotions that surged through me as I tried – unsuccessfully – to process the meaning of those three words. There was no yelling, no pounding of the desk or throwing of the computer, phone, or any other object sitting on my desk. Not a single tear was shed. At least, not at that exact moment.
There would be much yelling, throwing, and crying in the hours, days, weeks and months to follow. Instinctively, I knew all of “that” had to wait. It has been over three years since I first heard those words come over the speakerphone from somewhere in the United States to me in China. But, the feelings and the insecurity borne from those words are as fresh and new as the air I breathe each day.
Why?
Because the criticism was personal. Because the criticism attacked my competency as a woman and not as a professional. Because the criticism was designed to hurt me rather than build my performance capability. It wasn’t business; it was personal. Very personal.
This is what “Lean In” and all of the other career advice books for women don’t tell you. Business is personal for women. Not because women take business personally but because women must navigate a business world that is steeped in a culture that is male, specifically white male. This isn’t a criticism or an indictment of men either. It is quite simply a fact of business.
The dominant group determines culture. The dominant group in business for centuries has been white and male, at least in North America and Europe. Consequently, the standards of performance, the rituals of communication and bonding, the organizational structure and the manner of feedback are all steeped in the culture of men. For men, business is just business. This is not true for women.
Business is personal for women because women must not only prove themselves as competent professionals but also as competent women and the standards for each are almost diametrically opposed. Just before I was told that I was not sufficiently charming, I was also told that I had exceeded each of the business goals set for the organization that I led. As a professional, I was not simply competent but exceptional. As a woman, however, I was distinctly incompetent.
In fairness, someone suggested that I “turn on the charm” a year earlier. This person was my then boss, a 40-year veteran of the industry and a woman. Indeed, just one of two female corporate officers at my Fortune 50 company. I considered the advice and dismissed it. I wasn’t going to “turn on the charm” to make some man feel more comfortable or to advance my own standing. No one was asking the CFO to be more charming. No one was even asking him to be more humane.
My charm quotient ultimately determined the fate of my career with this company. After I left, I noticed the stories of other women whose charm quotient factored heavily in their own career fates. Women like Jill Abramson, WHO ELSE? I decided that I was in very good company. And, yet, I could not shake the insecurity and shadow of failure.
Why?
It was unfair but that wasn’t the reason these feelings were clinging to me. It was that the comment was wholly unnecessary. It was intentional. It was delivered and intended as a personal attack. There was no discussion about autocratic style or a concern over team building capability. Indeed, no such conversation could take place because I was the only leader in the entire Asia Pacific & Africa region who built a team from scratch using local-national talent rather than expat talent. The only way to attack my leadership style was, in fact, to attack my womanhood.
Men just don’t face this conundrum: to soften their hard edges by seducing their subordinates, colleagues, and managers. Men may choose to “turn on the charm” but charm isn’t a job requirement. There is no charm standard against which a man is measured, evaluated and expected to perform. Charm is a standard that exists for women – it is on the other side of the tightrope that women must walk while trying to be both a leader and a woman.
Being un-charming is not something that would ordinarily bother me. But, identity is contextual. In the context of my performance review, I was keenly aware of my gender. I was the only woman on the leadership team for my global function. I was the only woman with revenue-generating responsibility in Asia Pacific & Africa. I was isolated by my gender. I was keenly aware of my gender and that my performance would reflect not only on me but also on all of the women within my function striving to rise to my level. I knew that if I was judged to be less competent than my male peers, my failure could and likely would forestall the advancement of women in this company.
I wasn’t wrong. A man replaced me in China. A man who delayed his move to China until his children completed the school year. I, however, was forced to leave my children and husband behind in China while I returned to the States to a position that didn’t really exist and was designed to force me out. And, this was a negotiated gift. A gift that likely would not have been received if it weren’t for a man who happened to be CEO of the region with two daughters in college. Identity is contextual. He saw what was happening and feared for his own daughters.
Fortunately, I knew that I was leaving this company when I took the assignment in China and that decision was reinforced the minute I heard those three words: not sufficiently charming. After China, there was nowhere for me to go – no new challenge to conquer. I was already bored and boredom is a dangerous thing for a person like me. While I don’t regret my decisions, I remain haunted by the feelings associated with that moment in my career. It drives me. It drives me to change the culture so that my own daughters’ accomplishments are never rendered insignificant because someone judged them to be “not sufficiently charming.”
Jennifer Gilhool is the founder of Gender Economics Lab, a professional, focused thought leading coaching and consulting practice that cuts through popular myths about gender in the workplace. GEL distinguishes its solutions by assuring both male and female workers that smart gender literacy rewards participants with career growth and rewards companies with higher margins. GEL goes far beyond compliance issues to deliver business value for all stakeholders. Learn more at www.gendereconomicslab.com
]]>
by Lyn Boyer —
In my years as a career and leadership coach, I have seen individuals thrive, and I have watched as others put in the time but made little progress. I like to believe I have made a difference in people’s lives, and I reflect on and take responsibility when coaching has not been as successful as I would like. When necessary I ask myself what I could have done differently as a coach—asked different questions, asked more questions, been more assertive, been less assertive, been more demanding, been more flexible… Just as I ask myself questions about what works and what does not work in coaching, I believe it is essential that coaching clients enter into a coaching relationship with the right questions and enough information to make their coaching experiences productive. Because many coaching clients have little background in the practice, I offer the following suggestions as you or they search for and use coaching services.
1. Identify why you want a coach. Understand that there are different kinds of coaches. Some focus primarily on productivity and operational behavior. Some focus on team building and organizational climate. My team also considers those, but my personal focus is Affective Leadership. I am more concerned with who a person is as a leader or team member. If, for example, your primary concern is the bottom line, I may not be the coach for you, but other coaches may serve you very well.
2. Find the coach that meets your needs. Just as coaches have different areas of focus, they also have different personalities and backgrounds. It is not always necessary for the coach to have the same background as you. In some cases, it is better to work with someone who has no history with the industry or organization. He or she may be able to see conditions you experience with different eyes. The important consideration is that the coach you choose should have a philosophy that aligns with yours—what matters in life, careers or leadership.
3. Understand the coach’s procedures. What are the expectations for missed appointments? How do you reschedule appointments? How much communication is allowed or expected between sessions? Is the meeting place or time flexible? Are coaching sessions conducted in person, on-line or by telephone? Do you receive discounts for pre-payment or blocking hours in advance? Complete understanding and agreement will prevent misunderstanding, loss of time or money, and will contribute to a stronger and perhaps more productive relationship.
4. Check your attitude. Are you coachable? Are you willing to take the time required to bring about improvement? Can you consider different points of view? Are you willing to tackle tough conversations? Learning new behavior is scary and slightly uncomfortable. Are you willing to be a different person than you now are? Are you willing to risk reactions of people when you act in ways they may not expect?
5. Ask questions of yourself and the coach. Am I making progress? Why or why not? Am I spending coaching time productively? Am I holding myself accountable? Have I set goals high enough? Are they too high? The coach’s job is to ask questions that will prompt the client to find the best solutions for herself; it is usually not to suggest solutions. However, asking a coach’s opinion of a situation without asking for specific direction can be beneficial.
6. Establish trust. The coach’s first responsibility to any client is to establish trust. It is just as important for the client to consider and build a trusting relationship. Recognize when trust is present and when it is lacking. If trust stands in the way, reconsider the value of the relationship.
7. Do your homework. At the end of each session, you and your coach should outline actions you plan to take to move you toward meeting your goals. Take these action steps very seriously. Unless you actually follow through, your coaching session was simply a social call. Record what actions you agree to take. Decide when you will complete your “assignments.” Be sure the coach holds you accountable and asks you to discuss your progress during each session.
8. Recognize topics you may not want to discuss…discuss them. If certain topics are too painful or too risky, tell the coach that you do not feel comfortable discussing them. A coach must remain sensitive to your comfort and welfare. However, ask yourself why these topics are painful or risky. Why do you not want to discuss them? These discussions often hasten your progress.
9. Tell your story succinctly. Time is money. It is wonderful to have someone listen to your complaints, fears or frustrations, and a certain amount of time doing so can be productive. However, it is important to monitor the time you take in telling your story and move into discussions about why each story is important as quickly as possible. What are your motivations and the motivations of others, and what steps can you take to deal with frustration, anger, loss or whatever issues arise from the discussion?
10. Recognize what progress looks like. If it is not working, tell the coach. Frequently evaluate your goals. Have you met them? What is your timeline? Are you on track? What is preventing achievement of your goals? Is the time you spend in coaching moving you forward? What can you do to speed up the process?
You are paying the coach to help you move forward, and the coach must accept responsibility for assisting you in the process. It is just as important for you to see the relationship as a partnership. Coaching is not something that is done to you. It is a relationship that requires you and the coach to focus and take action to build a better future for you and those around you.
What other suggestions do you have? What other questions do you consider valuable?
Dr. Lyn Boyer is an author, speaker and leadership coach. Her focus is Affective Leadership™ — expanding possibilities though effective use of mind, body, emotion and language. Her most recent book is Connect: Affective Leadership for Effective Results. Her website is www.LynBoyer.net. In a previous life Lyn was a school and district administrator. That includes high school principal of a 2400-student school and coordinator of planning and school leadership in a district of 42, 000 students. She also taught Educational Leadership at the University of South Florida, Sarasota-Manatee. She lives on the beautiful west coast of Florida with her husband and two rescue dogs, Sam and Alex.
]]>“Touch cements trust, an important feeling the handshake has long symbolized.”
At a time where both genders are looking for how to bridge the gap maybe the humble handshake is a key.
Let’s look at the average person, who shakes hands nearly 15,000 times in a lifetime, with one in five admitting they hate the act of the handshake and are unsure how to do it properly, regularly making a handshake faux pas such as having sweaty palms, squeezing too hard, holding on too long or not looking the recipient in the eye during the core exchange.
What Can You Do? Well help is at hand as Discover Magazine states that scientists have developed a mathematical equation for the perfect handshake taking into account the twelve primary measures needed to convey respect and trust to the recipient. The research was performed as Chevrolet UK wanted its sales team to have a strategic edge and made the results part of a handshake training guide for its staff and is meant to offer peace of mind and reassurance to its customers.
I can’t say whether I would subscribe to the scientific formula but I do think that people need to seriously consider the message their handshake projects. Whilst Jerry Seinfeld does a quick stand up comedy segment about the handshake as an intro for an episode (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFUEerAJXRM) comedians usually are our greatest reflection of ourselves.
Teaching my daughter and my sons about the art form of the handshake is part of the ‘parenting package’ I subscribe to, and when a man recently commented to me (not knowing I was her parent) that my daughter “has a fine handshake, she’s looked me in the eye and shook my hand with confidence. That’s the kind of person who will go far in this industry!” My heart filled with pride. Why? Because the handshake is part of the measure of a person.
Whilst I may not have the answer to what is the perfect handshake, I do know the value of this form of communication and strongly recommend that you take a look at how your handshake forms part of the first impression that people make about you. It could be that your handshake – that simple yet complex interaction – has determined your ‘fate’ more often that you realize.
These thoughts are from the desk of Karina Santolin, they are my own and are not designed to be taken as fact. Hopefully though, they will inspire change, challenge perception and maybe help someone along their life path.
References:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolkinseygoman/2011/02/13/seven-seconds-to-make-a-first-impression
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2010/07/19/danger-car-salesmen-now-in-possession-of-perfect-handshake-equation
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1294962/Scientists-perfect-handshake-formula-Firm-squeeze-shakes.html
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/happiness-in-world/201202/dont-shake-hands
http://www.chevrolet.co.uk/experience-chevrolet/news/2010/news/news-details2010-18.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFUEerAJXRM
by Curt Rice —
The “obvious” tension between diversity and quality leapt onto the front page this week through a debate at Smith College. And just in case you’re unsure, the putatively obvious connection is that increasing diversity decreases quality.
The debate at Smith presents a new twist on this issue, and it offers at least two lessons to university leaders everywhere.
Smith alumna, Anne Spurzem, started this round of discussion with her letter to The Sophian.
Spurzem opens her letter by noting the attention given to diversity issues in Smith’s admissions process.
I read your article about [President] Carol [Christ]‘s resignation and it had some interesting statistics. It mentioned the percentage increase in the population of women of color and foreign students. The gist of the article was that one of Carol’s objectives coming into the position was to increase diversity and the article gave statistics that showed that she did.
Later, the author discusses specific admissions criteria, expressing concern that Smith has stopped using the SAT — the main national standardized test for college admission. She also identifies the alleged antagonism between diversity and quality.
Smith no longer looks at SATs because if it did, it would have to report them to U.S. News & World Report [for their college ranking system]. Low-income black and Hispanic students generally have lower SATs than whites or Asians of any income bracket.
And finally the author identifies the inevitable consequences of Smith’s reduced emphasis on the SAT, namely rankings slippage.
To accomplish [President Christ's] mission of diversity, the school is underweighting SAT scores. This phenomenon has been widely discussed in the New York Times Education section. If you reduce your standards for grades and scores, you drop in the rankings …
Anne Spurzem takes a familiar position: if you focus on diversity, quality takes a hit.
A slightly milder version of her claim has emerged in the ensuing debate, and it lets us draw out two important nuances, leading to the conclusion that diversity and quality are in fact not in any necessary opposition.
Surely we can agree, the milder version goes, that a focus on diversity in the admissions process — as opposed to pure academic merit — opens the door to a reduction of excellence in the student body. We might get lucky, of course, and never step through that doorway, instead only finding diversity-enhancing students of equal quality to the others, but we take a risk nonetheless.
There are two important perspectives from which to challenge this assertion.
First of all, we must acknowledge that every admissions system has risks that open the door to a reduction in quality.
Suppose that admissions to Smith College were determined exclusively on the basis of SAT scores. What potential compromise of excellence is introduced with that system? SAT-based admissions may reward problem-solving skills, a prodigious vocabulary and even creativity. But it would not reward discipline, focus, the potential for collaboration or good writing skills. These important components of excellence are left unrevealed by SAT scores, and using SATs alone for admission therefore carries a risk of selecting a student body less excellent than what it could be.
Admissions processes use much more than SAT scores for just this reason. The extensive collection of books and blogs about college admissions makes it clear that the process can be gamed and that the door to compromised excellence is wide open, regardless of the admissions system being used.
If diversity is added to the process and applicants are rewarded for coming from a minority background — economic, racial, ethnic, whatever — does this open a new door to compromising excellence? Perhaps it does, but the first important point in this discussion is that this does not stand in contrast to “pure quality” admissions systems with hermetically sealed doors protecting the results from any assault upon quality. If diversity criteria open the door to potentially reduced quality, that doorway is nothing to fear; you don’t have to go through it.
The second point we must take from this discussion involves the difference between failure and the absence of excellence.
Students admitted because they contribute to diversity may indeed have a higher drop-out rate than others. Is this because they are somehow less excellent, less clever or less capable of top-level performance?
Perhaps these students have a higher failure rate at places like Smith because they don’t feel comfortable there, because they struggle to integrate, or because faculty members come from such different backgrounds that they are unable to connect with these students in the same ways they connect with their traditional students.
Failure in school can have various explanations, many of them irrelevant to an individual’s potential contribution to academic excellence. Instead, failure may find its source in impediments to the realization of that contribution.
The pursuit of excellence obviously is an appropriate and legitimate priority for any college or university. Focus during the admissions process on increased diversity does not entail a loss of quality or excellence any more than other approaches to admissions entail such a loss. Indeed, a position like Spurzem’s means that the historical lack of diversity at Smith is a direct result of focusing exclusively on excellence — a position difficult to maintain in the face of a moment’s reflection.
It may be true, however, that greater diversity requires a richer battery of strategies at an institution wanting to facilitate both the assimilation and success of its students. Colleges and universities may have to discover and develop new resources for their students, not because the students lack quality but simply because their backgrounds require different approaches to become successful.
Research shows that increased diversity in the student population has big payoffs for an institution and its students. Dr. Patricia Gurin at the University of Michigan shows that “students learn better in such an environment and are better prepared to become active participants in our pluralistic, democratic society once they leave school.”
The pursuit of diversity introduces new challenges. The challenges are different than those of other systems, but the other systems have challenges, too. And these challenges are not insurmountable; new approaches to instruction or the organization of education will succeed.
What new approaches will you and your organization try? If you have successful or creative measures for achieving the goals of increased diversity, please tell us about them in the comments section below.
To enjoy other analyses of the Smith College debate, see not only The Sophian, but also Jezebel, TheJaneDough, NeverYetMelted, Smith’d, ConfusedAtAHigherLevel, CoyoteMuse, and a new site by some Smith students, celebrating their diversity: Pearls-and-Cashmere.
Photo courtesy of Light Night
A number of years ago, I told the principal of the high school where I taught that I wanted to become a school administrator. He nodded slightly and said he thought that was a good idea. A few weeks later, in casual conversation, he asked me if I became an administrator and my husband got a job somewhere else if I would follow my husband or if he would have to stay with me. As he said it, he chuckled and I sensed that, to him, my husband’s work was a more important consideration.
I later became principal of that school, and I thoroughly enjoyed the experience. The state-assigned school grade rose and remained steady during my tenure; students, teachers and parents seemed reasonably content; and new programs were implemented. After about three years, one of the teachers there told me in disbelief that someone in the community said that a woman should not be principal of that school, which at that time had won four state football championships, a very important measure of success in the community.
I wanted to believe that the biases against women in certain positions were gone, but these comments let me know they were present then, and I believe they remain today. I suspect that every woman who has taken risks and assumed a role of leadership has a similar story to tell.
I mention these two incidents because I have recently begun working with two friends on a project to promote, support and educate women leaders. As I begin this project, I realize that if women are to rise above these conscious and often unconscious biases, they must be clear on what they can uniquely offer. They have to know and draw upon their strengths.
Each woman, of course, has her own skills and abilities. However, according to Godfrey (1993), in addition to their individual traits, women tend to bring the following skills to the table:
This is not to say that men do not hold these traits. It is simply to say that the women in leadership roles that she interviewed over a number of years repeatedly demonstrated these themes.
A more recent research study by Caliper and Aurora (cited in Lowen, 2012) indicated the following traits for women:
When women (and men) understanding the skills that women leaders are more likely to possess, they can strengthen, support and draw upon them. It is incumbent upon those of us who prepare, mentor and coach women leaders to understand and reinforce these skills as well.
What other skills do you believe women leaders possess? What is your story? How have you overcome biases you have seen or experienced?
References:
When Denis Thatcher asked Margaret Roberts to marry him, she made it very clear that she was a very different woman than most. She would not live her life through him, she would not focus on running their house, and she would not stay home with the children. “I will not die washing a teacup,” she said. She insisted that she would make a difference in the world. And, make a difference she did.
Yesterday afternoon, my husband and I viewed “The Iron Lady” in a small, packed theater in Sarasota. Before I saw the movie, I was familiar with Margaret Thatcher’s role as Prime Minister of Great Britain in the 1980’s. I knew very little about Margaret Thatcher the woman. I also knew that I would have made some very different decisions than she did, but I wanted to learn more about her as a leader. I wondered if her position as the Iron Lady is a model for women leaders today. I found a few possible answers but many more questions that I think are applicable.
Her story was told from late in life as she descended into dementia and related hallucinations. Flashbacks show very compelling images of her as one of the most powerful women in history.
Like Ronald Reagan, her conservative counterpart from across the pond, she was a masterful communicator, but that ability to connect was not always the case. One early critic compared her voice to a cat sliding down a blackboard. In the film, Mrs. Thatcher learned how to dress, how to wear her hair, and how to speak in her powerful and compelling manner after jeering men from across the aisle in parliament referred to her voice as screeching.
As with many women in other settings, breaking into the established men’s club was a significant challenge. When she arrived in Parliament, she found an ironing board in the otherwise empty ladies’ room after she mistakenly walked into the very busy and convivial men’s room, and she was met with jeers and smirks during her early speeches in the House of Commons. Margaret Thatcher insisted that she wanted to make a difference. She wanted to move the country in a different direction. Colleagues told her, “If you want to change the party, you have to lead. If you want to change the country, you have to lead. You have it in you.” She ultimately decided she would stand for Leader of the Conservative Party. When her party won a majority of seats, she became Prime Minister.
Extraordinary passion seemed to be her defining characteristic. She fought to change education—some would say for the worse. She held firm on her seemingly solitary position to go to war in the Falkland Islands. She stood against the labor unions, which she said were making the country weaker. She stood up to Soviet leaders and shared credit for breaking up the former Soviet Union. She frequently came under intense criticism from journalists, opposition party members and British citizens. Angry crowds mobbed her limousine. When an Irish Republican Army (IRA) member planted a bomb that exploded at her hotel in Brighton in 1984, she came closer to assassination than any 20thCentury British Prime Minister. However, she held her ground. Mrs. Thatcher showed tremendous passion, but she made it clear that for her, thinking was more important than emotions. When her doctor examined her, she quoted: “Watch your thoughts, for they become actions. Watch your actions, for they become habits. Watch your habits, for they become character. Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.”At the same time, she lamented the contemporary focus on feeling and emotion: “It used to be about doing something. Now it is about being someone,” she said.
An underlying theme of this film was the conflict between work and family. Margaret Thatcher stated early on that home and family would not be her priorities, and that position appeared to have taken a toll. In one conversation with Denis, her deceased husband, she mentioned a time that he had gone to South Africa. He asked her how long it took her to realize he was gone. In a telephone conversation with her son, who lived in South Africa, it appeared that he was telling her he would not take time to see her when he was in London. In my opinion, Meryl Streep played this part brilliantly. Apparently, the Golden Globe judges agreed. She won the award for best actor. I was also interested to see that the NBC evening news last night featured a short segment on the controversy the movie has generated in England because of its focus on Mrs. Thatcher’s mental deterioration after she left her very public life. When Meryl Streep was interviewed about the controversy, she said she saw the movie as a story about what this kind of power and responsibility does to you as a human being. Whatever one’s opinion of Margaret Thatcher, it is useful to look at her life and her leadership style and learn from them—if only to decide that one does not want to lead or live the same way.As I mentioned previously, viewing the film introduced as many questions as answers. In the film, Mrs. Thatcher said, “Many have underestimated me… at their own peril.” I wondered what make her so tough. Did she think she had to be tougher because she was a woman? What does a woman need to be and do today? What are the barriers that women continue to experience today?
What toll did leadership and responsibility actually take on her? How did she experience the conflict between family and work? How do these conflicts affect women today? How do women deal with these conflicts? I would enjoy reading your thoughts and opinions. Lyn Boyer is an author, speaker and leadership coach. Her focus is Affective Leadership™ — expanding possibilities though effective use of mind, body, emotion and language. Her most recent book is Connect: Affective Leadership for Effective Results. Her website is www.LynBoyer.net. In a previous life Lyn was a school and district administrator. That includes high school principal of a 2400-student school and coordinator of planning and school leadership in a district of 42, 000 students. She also taught Educational Leadership at the University of South Florida, Sarasota-Manatee. She lives on the beautiful west coast of Florida with her husband and two rescue dogs, Sam and Alex.]]>Gender equality on boards of directors remains an issue.
On March 29, 2012 the federal government announced that as part of its 2012-2013 budget it was creating an advisory council of business leaders to promote the presence of women on corporate boards of directors.
The budget noted that although women in this country have reached the senior ranks of business they remain in the minority on corporate boards.
This month Marengere Group shines the analytical spotlight on women in the boardroom and asks the questions “Where are we?” The answer is in the form of an infographic detailing the situation of gender equality – or lack of – in the Canadian C-Suite.
The women’s advocacy group Catalyst concluded from a 2011 study that the proportion of women on Canadian boards rose only half a percentage point between 2009 and 2011. Women currently hold just 14.5 per cent of board seats in Financial Post 500 companies, it said, and 10.3 per cent in public companies. Additionally, nearly 40 per cent of FP500 companies and over 46 per cent of public FP500 companies have zero women serving on their boards.
Why? Canadian universities have been producing a fairly equal number of men and women business grads for years.
The answer is involved and detailed in the infographic, but the big question these days is what to do about it.
Norway is a celebrated example of the use of quotas to promote gender equality in the boardroom. It passed a law which catapulted women’s share of seats from 9 per cent in 2003 to the required 40 per cent now. Quebec passed a similar quota in 2006 for its crown corporations; today the proportion of women on those boards is 42 per cent.
Replicated studies have shown that a diverse board – and certainly, a gender diverse one – increases profitability. It also increases accountability by establishing measures such as a code of conduct and conflict of interest guidelines.
The use of quotas, however, remains controversial. European Union justice commissioner Viviane Reding, for example, is giving “self-regulation a last chance. I would like companies to be creative so that regulators do not have to become creative.”
In the meantime, various non-governmental organizations have issued recommendations, as detailed in the infographic, and as I mentioned in an earlier story, organizational culture may be the largest culprit. As the Ivey Business Journal Online put it “In the current cultural environment, the playing field is not level.”
Quit hogging the ball, guys.