If it’s true that we only have a few seconds to make a good first impression, then it stands to reason we should want to do everything we can to make the most positive impact in that short period of time. Whether it’s a job interview, pitching a new idea, seeking funding or running for office, the old adage holds: You don’t get a second chance to make a first impression.
It seems to be an easy concept to grasp, but how do you pull it off? Are there techniques, is there a formula and why do some people seem better at it than others? I’m always looking for ways to help clients answer these questions. I’m also on the lookout for ways to enhance my own skills when it comes to making the best possible first – and lasting – impression.
I believe I’ve found a tool that can be helpful in overcoming the fear and anxiety of giving a speech, heading into a job interview or asking for funding or a vote.
I just read the book Presence: Bringing Your Boldest Self to Your Biggest Challenges. It was written by Amy Cuddy. Many of us are familiar with her…not surprising since this professor and psychologist is widely known for having the second-most-watched TED talk of all time.
Now, I’m not in the habit of recommending books to a wide audience, limiting my referral service to friends and fellow book club members. But, I’m recommending this one to colleagues, clients and to anyone interested in improving his/her “presence” by recognizing the mind-body connection.
According to Cuddy, making a few tweaks in our body language can increase our self-confidence and change not only how we see ourselves, but also others' perceptions of us.
Cuddy studies how nonverbal behavior and snap judgments influence people. Her theory, proven by her success and the success of those who follow her counsel, is by accessing our personal power, we can achieve “presence,” the state in which we stop worrying about the impression we’re making on others and instead adjust the impression we’re making on ourselves.
Sounds pretty philosophical, doesn’t it? That kind of thing you’d expect from a Harvard professor. But this book, which has been deeply researched and filled with anecdotal stories, is easy reading and it leaves you with ways to gain strength and personal power by taking advantage of the mind-body connection.
Anyone who reads it will find a way to overcome the fear connected with stressful situations and persevere during those challenging moments.
Jan Molino is the CEO & Managing Partner of Aspire Ascend, a service provider and member-based organization that helps women advance toward leadership. She is an experienced speaker and facilitated numerous forums and panel discussions on this subject. Jan can be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Future leadership…an important question for Americans to consider this election year. But as we weigh the merits and personal attributes of those running for elective office, let me suggest that equally important leadership questions loom over the business and non-profit sectors of our society. The key question is where are our future C-suite and boardroom leaders going to come from? Who will be filling the pipeline and why aren’t more women among them? Especially, why aren’t more women heading for the corner office?
Women are poorly represented in corporate America with few female CEOs, and the pipeline of future women leaders is not reassuring. Only 14.2% of the top five leadership positions at companies in the S&P 500 are held by women, according to a recent CNNMoney analysis.
And, at the very top of these organizations, there are only 24 women in CEO positions out of 500 companies. And that number is going down as Zerox’s Ursula Burns, the only black woman running an S&P 500 company, is relinquishing the CEO role when Xerox splits in two later this year (she will remain with the legacy document-technology company as its chairman).
True, recently there have been some high-profile members added to this, sadly, extremely small group – Lockheed Martin’s Marillyn Hewson and GM’s Mary Barra, for instance – but the fact remains that women currently make up a minute percentage of U.S. organizations’ top leaders.
Why is this the case? You’ll get many answers to that question. But, in my experience, it boils down to a few troubling explanations.
Close your eyes and think of a CEO leading a senior-level meeting. Who do you picture…what does your CEO look like? Probably a man. More often than not, a white man. If a woman is in your picture at all, she’s most likely in a human resource or marketing role, important but not the path to the top. Rarely is she the CFO, COO or general counsel. Look at a mission-critical job and you will probably see a man doing it. Women are also lagging far behind their male counterparts in the profit-and-loss positions where future leaders are identified and groomed.
When you’re not among those tapped for a place on the ladder to the top, you don’t get the mentoring nor the sponsorships without which, it is very difficult to get the assignments that showcase your talents.
It is rare in today’s competitive organization – whether for-profit or non-profit – for a woman to receive the critical support she needs from high-ranking sponsors who can actively campaign for her advancement. A sponsor will fight for you, and position you for success within the organization. Without that support, you are pretty much on your own.
During my years as a former recruiter specializing in placing senior-level executives, I saw the mindset of hiring managers many of whom had fixed views about women and men, leadership and careers. Those views frequently created barriers for women, their talent and their unique perspectives.
Eliminating – or at least minimizing – those views and stultifying mindsets are critical to lowering gender barriers in the workplace.
A new study conducted by Leanin.org and McKinsey & Company revealed that despite modest improvements, the overarching findings were similar: Women remain underrepresented at every level of the corporate pipeline, with the disparity greatest at senior levels of leadership. So, waiting for organizations to suddenly push a button and change habits formed over generations doesn’t seem to be the best strategy to add women to the leadership pipeline.
But, there are things women (we) can do to help ourselves. Take control of your career and be pro-active.
Let your organization know that you are interested in leadership positions. Volunteer for assignments or offer to lead a project that will stretch you.
When you see an opportunity for advancement, don’t back away because you can only meet most, but not all, of the criteria – a man wouldn’t. You’ve got this!
Don’t overthink your chances of success…take a shot …….a man would!
Market yourself. Let the leaders of your organization know about your successes and achievements. Don’t assume others will do that for you. And don’t be afraid to speak up and present your point of view.
Develop your “personal brand,” the authentic you that no one can duplicate. That way you communicate and build relationships in a way that is unique to you. Build on this personal brand and extend your network so that your brand is also extended.
Learn to think and act like a board member. That can come from serving on volunteer or non-profit boards – also a great way to extend your network – build governance and other C-suite skills.
Each of us needs to step forward, out of the shadows, both for our individual development as leaders and to fill the leadership pipeline with women. This is a critical step we women need to take to make sure there are more women in the CEO seat!
Jan Molino is the CEO & Managing Partner of Aspire Ascend, a service provider and member-based organization, that helps women advance toward leadership. She is an experienced speaker and facilitated numerous forums and panel discussions on this subject. Jan can be reached at: email@example.com.
Don’t stop me if you’ve heard this before. It’s important to say it over and over.
The good news is that the percentage of women moving into the C-Suite is increasing. The bad news is that the movement is proceeding at a snail’s pace.
A majority of men and women agree that gender plays no role in a person’s ability to lead a business. Nothing new there! According to a recent Pew Research survey, 80% of men and women surveyed said that neither men nor women have leadership styles that make them more successful in business. In fact, about a third of adults (31%) said top female executives might be more honest and ethical than male execs.
There are even benefits to having more female leaders, according to the survey. About three-in-ten Americans surveyed said that having more women leaders in both business and government would improve the quality of life for women across the country.
But Pew’s study also shows that, while men and women may believe female leaders are just as qualified as their male peers, certain stigmas still persist. 2015 was not the year of the woman CEO as globally the share of incoming women CEOS fell to less than 3%, the lowest percentage since 2011. Out of the 359 brand new CEOs in 2015, exactly 10 women were chosen to lead corporations. The news was even worse in the U.S. and Canada where the share of incoming women CEOs fell for the third year to the lowest in the study’s history. Surprisingly, there was just one woman among the total 87 incoming CEOs in the U.S. and Canada last year (1 percent, compared to 4 percent in 2014 and over 7 percent in 2012).
And only 19% of those companies’ have women on their boards!
Even more interesting is the fact that female CEOs are more often hired from outside the company than male CEOs are. Thirty two percent of all incoming and outgoing female CEOs from 2004-2015 were outsiders compared to just 23 percent of males CEOs. According to Strategy&, women CEOs are more often hired from outside the company which indicates that companies have not been cultivating enough female senior executives in-house. The bad news is that they are not being recognized within their own organizations. The good news is that more companies who consider outsiders will improve the chances for women to become CEOs.
A February 2016 study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a nonprofit group based in Washington, DC, and EY found that despite the apparent economic benefits, many corporations still lack gender diversity. Almost 60 percent of the companies reviewed had no female board members, more than 50 percent had no female executives, and less than 5 percent had a female chief executive.
The study found that female CEOs performed about as well as male chief executives. But the more interesting fact is that having more women on boards correlated with higher profitability.
The data was very clear regarding women in top management positions: an increase in the share of women from zero to 30 percent would be associated with a 15 percent rise in profitability.
So, what is keeping women out of the C-Suite?
Dan Cassino, a Fairleigh Dickinson University political scientist, found in a recent study that a perceived threat to male identity and masculinity may play a role in America’s politics. Although he focused on the current political scene, is it much of a stretch to apply his findings as an explanation for why women are generally relegated to the lower rungs of the organizational ladder?
Cassino says that there is a belief, conscious or subconscious, that “…white men used to run everything and now we don’t and that’s terrible.” While he is speaking of the legislative arena, don’t we also see this unspoken belief playing out in the workplace as well?
By recognizing that women in decision-making positions can add significant value to an organization – and to the bottom line – organizations will be taking a substantial step toward a more realistic view of the business world, the leadership talent pool, and the marketplace. It will also be filling the executive pipeline with women whose perspectives can bring innovative solutions to business challenges.
Organizations should begin by reviewing their hiring and promotion policies. Are they gender neutral? Does merit drive those decisions? Is talent being developed properly?
Progressive organizations are embracing the notion of both mentoring and sponsoring future female leaders. Mentoring has historically been recognized as a successful training tool and a way to identify future leaders. But mentees could languish in middle management unless there is also an understanding that a sponsor – someone who will make a recommendation for promotion and otherwise support an upcoming female leader – plays an important, if not critical, role in an executive’s successful entry into the C-Suite.
For women, it is becoming increasingly important to identify the appropriate work environment when researching future employers. Are women represented in leadership positions, on the board or in key operating positions?
As a woman with leadership aspirations, are you prepared to step up and take on challenging, even risky, assignments? Do you fully understand – and can you work within – the current workplace environment…and work toward building a more “gender neutral” climate?
Creating greater gender balance in the C-Suite is a two-way street. But currently, there are more men driving that route.
In the midst of our current hotly contested political races, everyone has an opinion on almost every issue. It’s rare when any of the politicians, or even most voters, agree on anything. One of the few areas of agreement is the need for the United States to maintain a competitive edge in a growing international, and evermore interconnected marketplace. But, how do we do that and, ensuring the nation’s position as a global leader?
To do that, we cannot afford to overlook any resource, including human resources. Yet we are doing just that when we exclude women, and their unique perspectives, from strategy development and policy-making C-suite participation.
Women control over 80% of U.S. consumer spending yet make up only 14.6% of executive officers, 8.1% of top earners, and 4.6% of Fortune 500 CEOs. They hold just 16.9% of Fortune 500 board seats.
What steps must we take to correct this imbalance and put the strength of women’s thinking into corporate and policy decision making?
It begins with corporate practices and organizational cultures – currently more exclusionary than inclusive. Women’s advancement into the leadership ranks begins with today’s leaders, who must provide examples by organizational practices and their personal attitudes. It starts with a strong commitment by top management to gender diversity; including it as part of the strategic agenda, monitoring its progress across the corporate landscape and communicating its priority status throughout the enterprise.
Programs and forums focusing on gender diversity should become part of the in-house training philosophy with the development of women leaders and the acceptance of women in the organizational hierarchy as twin objectives. One won’t work without the other…building awareness among men of the difficulties women face reaching the top is a critical tool in redirecting internal cultures.
Organizations need to build conviction that what is good for women will be good for men, as well as for the entire enterprise.
That is done by raising men’s awareness – as well as women’s – to women-specific issues with the aim of changing practices that currently favor the recruitment and promotion of men, and positioning them at the head of the succession planning line.
Organizations can foster, encourage and reward new traditions of internal sponsorship where today’s leaders bring forward and support tomorrow’s leaders. In short, establish sponsorship programs. While mentors provide guidance and advice, sponsors are “career enablers” who enhance visibility among top leadership and actively push for women’s advancement. Sponsors actively drive advancement through concrete actions: opening doors, recommending women for promotions, and creating opportunities at the top.
Human Resource and other policies and processes should be reviewed and systematically revised:
When we make the corporate ladder more accessible to women, we incorporate fresh thinking, new perspectives and a more inclusive strategic outlook into an organization’s culture. That is both a good thing and the right thing if we are to ensure the nation’s position as a global leader.
I say McDonald’s, you immediately think golden arches. I say Nike, you think of that familiar “swoosh.” Those images and the emotional tie we bring to them are the tip of the branding iceberg. A business brand is an undeniably important competitive tool. Just as it is important for a business to develop its own brand, a personal brand can prove to be an invaluable strategic tool in an increasingly competitive marketplace for jobs, promotions and funding.
Personal branding is becoming just as important in business. A positive personal brand creates a consistent, targeted impression that helps you achieve your personal and professional goals. But, it is important to understand that a great personal brand is built on a foundation of authenticity. It cannot be faked, but must always be honest.
When you clearly stand apart and above others competing for the same jobs, for advancement or for supporting an entrepreneurial initiative, you generate interest and are much more likely to land interviews and gain advocates through your personal brand.
Over time, we develop a relationship – good or bad – with a brand. Organizations understand how important it is for that relationship to be a positive one. Anyone who successfully competes in the job market, within a competitive organization, for board positions, or the marketplace of ideas quickly learns the benefits of a positive brand.
So, where do you begin to build your personal brand? A good place to start is with your values, the core principles by which you live. They determine your attitudes, choices and actions: the way you present yourself to the world. This may be the most difficult part of building your brand. It requires focus and introspection. It is a good idea to create a baseline by testing your view of yourself against how the “market” perceives you. Think about the impressions you are making on friends, neighbors, business associates. Ask friends, family and colleagues how they view you. How do they perceive your strengths and weaknesses? Does their view align with what you are promoting as your brand?
Determining the gap between how you want to be perceived and the market’s “image” of you will tell you how much work you need to do to merge your brand with the market’s perception.
So, starting today, you are no longer “you.” You are a brand. How do you position yourself?
Start by identifying the qualities or characteristics that distinguish you from others in the job market, on the corporate ladder, pitching new ideas to funding sources. What have you done that makes you stand out? What would your colleagues or your customers say is your greatest and clearest strength? What do people say about you when you leave the room? What are your most attractive personal traits?
If the answers to those questions do not support the way you want your brand to be perceived, then you have some work to do.
Here is a way to start according to many marketing strategist who offers five tips for changing how people think about you and building your personal brand:
Building a successful personal brand takes time and constant attention. As you continue to develop your personal brand, stay consistent with your efforts, pay close attention to how the market responds to your content, and hone your direction until your focus is razor sharp. Fortunately, in the digital age there are numerous tools you can utilize:
Constantly find ways to produce value by creating or curating content that is in line with your brand…that positions you as an expert and helps you stand out. You are different, so leverage that difference.
Building a personal brand takes time and effort. But, as successful companies have found, a great brand pays great dividends.
The American Association of University Women (AAUW) recently published Barriers and Bias: The Status of Women in Leadership, a report that dives into the reasons for female leadership gaps and proposes concrete steps for narrowing and, ultimately, eliminating them.
There is no lack of qualified women to fill leadership roles. There are numbers galore from a range of government agencies and academics who study the field – and I have written on this subject as well – providing ample evidence that women earn the majority of university degrees at every level except for professional degrees. And more women are in the workforce today than ever before. So why aren’t there proportionately similar numbers of women in leadership roles? AAUW’s conclusion is that there is something inherent in the system holding women back.
AAUW suggests that blatant sex discrimination and stereotyping are still major problems. To overcome those barriers and take a major step toward achieving gender parity, the pipeline of potential leaders must be filled with more women willing and able to assume leadership roles. I have made that point in previous commentaries. But there is a flip side to that coin that is equally important: Men must be willing and able to take on more domestic responsibilities so that more women have the opportunity to pursue demanding fields.
“We also need to encourage enlightened employers who embrace a more flexible workplace, allowing women and men to move in and out of the workforce as they balance careers, family and personal goals. In essence, we all need to intentionally engage in making diversity and inclusion work on a daily basis,” according to the report.
Women leaders can benefit the bottom line. A 2012 Credit Suisse study found that companies with at least one woman on their board had a higher return on investment than companies with no women on their board. A 2007 Catalyst report on S&P 500 companies found a correlation between women’s representation on boards and a significantly higher return on equity, a higher return on sales and a higher return on invested capital.
Despite this growing mountain of evidence supporting the notion that women leaders is not just a matter of equality, it is also good business, too many organizations have yet to realize the potential of a fully diversified workforce.
The AAUW study calls on three groups – individuals, employers and policy makers – as key change agents in providing greater gender balance in the workplace. I want to focus on what “individuals” must do if the nation’s workforce is going to move toward that goal, and the nation is going to realize greater ROI – in both financial and human capital – as a result.
First, women. What must we do to put ourselves in the best possible position to move up the leadership ladder?
There is no question that we must be prepared for advancement. So, education – both formal and informal – is key. The kind of degree and internships we pursue as students both add to our formal knowledge and begin to build the network we will need to get a leg up when we leave academia. The earlier we lay the foundation for that network and develop the social skills required to build it, the greater our competitive edge when we enter the workforce.
As we look at potential employers, we should be aware of where we will be most comfortable. It is very difficult to succeed in an uncomfortable environment. As an individual, are you more comfortable in a hierarchical or collegial organization…fast-paced or laid back…formal or informal…does it prize initiative or conformity? And, will you be able to find a mentor or, better yet, a sponsor to help you move your career ahead; someone who recognizes your talents and seeks ways to move you forward?
Men (and organizations), can you identify your stereotypes and biases and put them aside? As an individual, are you prepared to pick up a larger share of the domestic side of “work/life balance”? In the workplace, can you influence or initiate mentorship and sponsorship programs or become a mentor or sponsor?
Women have made progress in the workplace, true. But we are nowhere near where we need to be. We are significantly underrepresented in the seats of power and policy, we still only earn about seventy cents for every dollar our male counterparts earn for the same work – even at the highest levels – and we are far too frequently penalized for “motherhood.”
When women are excluded at the top, for whatever reason, we all lose; and so does our country. And, since we all benefit from greater gender balance, we must all work diligently to achieve it.
Earlier this year, Washington, DC ,Mayor Muriel Bowser announced a three-year, $20 million investment targeting “the most urgent and persistent challenges” to realizing the potential of black men and boys in DC. Certainly a worthwhile initiative and one for which the Mayor should be applauded. But, when I looked for a similar focus on the needs of inner-city women and girls, I couldn’t find one. Unfortunately, this isn’t just a DC oversight. It exists nationally and shows up across our social, economic and business sectors.
Consider the biotechnology field, for example.
Venture capitalists – arguably the starting point for inventions, discoveries and new businesses in biotech – are more likely to fund white males over non-white minorities and females. According to recent findings by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, companies headed by male executives received 98% of all investments, while companies run by female executives received only 1% of the funding. And women-led start-up companies received only 7% of all venture capital funding in the United States.
The challenges women face and the disparity between funding for programs advancing men and women – particularly women of color – is documented in a report from the Open Society Foundations and the Foundation Center, showing that in 2011 foundations awarded more than $40-million in grants to support black boys and men, up from $29 million the previous year. Despite the overwhelming data that girls of color face the same and at times compounded set of obstacles as their male counterparts, no big foundations yet have major grant-making efforts that address their race- and gender-specific needs.
In 2012, just 5.4% of all foundation funding went to programs focused on women and girls, and less than 1% to programs focused on Black women and girls.
Over recent years, a number of initiatives have emerged to support boys and young men of color, with some two dozen foundations involved. But there have been few new efforts aimed at improving the lives of girls and young women of color, which begs the question: If support for boys and men of color is a priority, why are women and girls of color not an equal priority?
Of course, the answer is “they are”…or at least should be.
In my estimation, we need to do a few things to provide higher levels of funding to develop programs for girls and women with the same energy and urgency as we now do for disadvantaged boys and young men.
We need to recognize that girls and young women need the same kinds of role models now increasingly being provided to boys and young men. Women who have “made it” or are on the way up need to reach back to those who are following by becoming mentors and sponsors for young women who are searching for that resource and need trusted guidance and support.
We need to introduce young women and girls to business sectors and opportunities they might not otherwise have considered, and provide them with the skills and experience to compete in male-dominated fields, such as those making up the STEM business sectors.
There is some movement in that direction, but it is not growing quickly enough.
Last year, Booz Allen Hamilton created an initiative called STEM Girls 4 Social Good (SG4SG). It is an effort to bring together professionals and university summer interns with STEM backgrounds to work on some of today’s greatest societal challenges. During the kickoff week, Booz Allen joined Polaris and Girls Inc. of the Washington, DC, Metro Area for its annual six-week STEM camp. Booz Allen hosted 40 girls for a week-long focus on data science and its every day applications. With the support of talented mentors at Booz Allen, the Girls Inc. DC Metro Area girls learned ways that data science can improve the quality of life and, in this instance, help address the problem of human trafficking.
More initiatives like that are needed, as are partnerships with organizations like Girls Inc. of the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area, exposing girls to opportunities they might not have dreamt possible and helping them build the confidence to pursue those dreams. As one 12 year old in Washington, DC’s, Girls Inc. program told us: “When I wake up, I see someone who is willing to do anything to achieve my dream.”
In addition to developing an overlooked resource our country sorely needs, - i.e. the talents of girls and women - there’s another, more personal, reason to invest time, mentoring, sharing skills and experiences with disadvantaged girls…it just feels good!
You don’t have to look very far to find an organization seeking workforce diversity, particularly when it comes to women in leadership positions. It may take further exploration to find one that is successful meeting that goal.
Many of these well-meaning organizations are good at supporting women’s aspirations, and even putting in place programs that both encourage and assist women who want to move up the leadership ladder. What they are less successful at (in some cases even fail at) is preparing the organization itself, through policies and practice, to accept those who may not look, think, or act like the current male-dominated leadership ranks.
It is not enough for an organization to provide time and resources for women to learn technical, problem-solving and other skills. It must also create an environment that embraces not just “what” decisions women make, but also “how” they make them.
We women have qualities and abilities unique from those men bring to the workplace. We, for example, are apt to bring emotion (not a bad thing) into the decision-making process far more frequently than men. We may also be more optimistic and less skeptical about outcomes. Unless an organization’s leadership recognizes, accepts and embraces these traits, women aspiring to the top organizational rungs will continue to get mixed messages: yes, we want you to rise, but to do so, you have to act more like us, men.
To some extent, that messaging is understandable. What role models do women have? When we look around the workplace, and especially in the c-suite and boardroom, we see men. On rare occasions, and usually under duress – the NFL’s domestic violence issue, and American Apparel’s sexual harassment scandal come to mind – we are brought in for our sensitivity and unique views on such matters (or, cynics might say, it is just window dressing to obscure an ugly chapter in an organization’s history).
If you believe the words Walt Kelly – the creator of comic strip Pogo – puts in the mouth of one of his characters, “we have seen the enemy and he is us” – what can be done to tap into this underdeveloped pool of executive talent?
Provide at least some in-house success stories and role models. Don’t wait as the NFL, American Apparel and others have, until the crisis hits before bringing us and our unique perspectives into highly-visible roles. Organizations need women’s influence in the decision-making, policy-making process way before that happens. With women in the c-suite and boardroom, some of those crises may even have been avoided.
And what happens once we women see reflections of ourselves at the top of the organization? Who champions our move to those heights? Mentoring helps. Sponsors are better!
Assigning an established woman leader to work with a current female manager at a lower level within the organization, either formally or informally, can pay dividends.
What does the organization gain for recognizing, encouraging and mentoring future women leaders? It could gain a good deal.
In 2012, leadership consultancy Zenger Folkman presented a study on workplace leadership effectiveness. It found that, in overall leadership effectiveness, women scored 54.5% and men 51.8%.
When women see other women making decisions and being rewarded as leaders, they are more likely to step up and bring their views to department-level meetings, influence projects, provide strategic insight and, in general, step out of the shadows with less fear of making a career-limiting mistake.
And organizations should encourage such actions. By doing so, they will uncover potential leaders in some of the nooks and crannies that have historically gone unnoticed.
You know an issue is gaining importance when studies and surveys begin looking into it. When world-class universities devote resources and research to understand its implications, the issue has worked its way into the public conscience.
Gender balance and “women in the workplace” issues have reached that plateau.
In May, 2015 Harvard Business School announced the Gender Initiative; its objective: “to accelerate progress of women leaders.” Such a prestigious and highly visible program adds to the voices decrying the dominance of gender stereotypes when it comes to making hiring, promotion, and board membership decisions.
“So much of what people think they know about gender is simply not substantiated by empirical evidence but instead is based on gender stereotypes,” according to Robin Ely, Harvard Business School professor and the person who heads the initiative. She’s right, of course, and she’s not alone.
A study by the Catalyst, Inc., a leading research and advisory organization focusing on women in the workplace, found that gender-based stereotyping often colors c-suite perceptions of women leaders, frequently misrepresenting their true talents. This, in turn, widens the gender gap.
The biggest red flag of the study, Women “Take Care,” Men “Take Charge:” Stereotyping of U.S. Business Leaders Exposed, was the finding that men consider women to be inferior problem solvers, one of the critical qualities for effective leadership and a hallmark behavior of a CEO. Since men far outnumber women at the top executive level, and are almost always the decision makers when it comes to hiring and promoting to the senior ranks, such misperceptions make a significant contribution to sustaining and even widening the gender gap in leadership.
Is there a solution to this challenging and vexing workplace issue?
There isn’t a magic wand to wave, but there are steps we can take, informed by research such as the Catalyst study and the Harvard initiative, that will begin to close the gap, or at least bridge it.
Shelley Correll, a professor of sociology at Stanford University, has developed a series of steps aimed at eliminating gender-bias. Among them is education.
Both men and women need to understand that workplace stereotypes exist and recognize how that influences decision-making. That will sensitize us to the biases we all have. Decision-making, ultimately, benefits from that self-awareness.
The hiring/promotion process has to have clear, dispassionate, gender-neutral criteria applied to all candidates. Numerous examples, and supporting research, indicate that more women will be hired and subsequently moved into leadership roles when they exist.
When decision-makers are held accountable for their decisions, they think the process through very carefully, taking into account the criteria.
Women also must be held accountable; accountable for the career decisions we make and the reasons we make them.
When women lower their expectations of getting hired in certain positions (reverse stereotyping, if you will), they are doing themselves – and women in general – a disservice. By avoiding jobs in male-dominated industries, for instance, we breathe life into the myths and misrepresentations of women’s capabilities.
We women need to see ourselves as capable and competitive with men for any job, and comfortable at any organizational level up to and including the c-suite. That requires us to rethink our career objectives, get the education and experience required and follow our career dreams wherever they take us.
A 2015 Washington Post op-ed put a spotlight on the gender gap in technology, calling it “male-dominated,” and was critical of the disparity in pay between genders, calling it even more acute than in the rest of the business world. It took the position that if you are a woman looking for a job in the tech world, geography plays a big role in how well you get paid. A ranking by personal finance Web site, SmartAsset, released its “Best Cities for Women in Tech” report and named Washington, DC, as the number-one city based on the 2013 Census Bureau data. The Nation’s Capital led with women making up 37% of the tech workforce, the highest share of any of the fifteen cities on the list.
So why did Washington lead the list? The Federal government’s hiring policies are the answer, placing special emphasis on ensuring that its workforce reflects the population at large. But does Washington really deserve that number-one ranking? Sure, women have growth opportunities in the Nation’s Capital, but they are still not well-represented in executive-level positions.
Is it reasonable, then, to expect the tech sector to be a beacon of progressive thinking and include the female perspective in the top ranks of its leading and emerging companies?
Unfortunately, that isn’t the case.
While some of the highest-ranking executives in technology are women – Marissa Mayer, Meg Whitman and Sheryl Sandberg immediately come to mind – only 6% of CEO positions at the top 100 technology companies belong to women. In fact, only 22% of the overall IT workforce is female, according the National Center for Women & Information Technology.
Unfortunate as they are, these numbers aren’t surprising when you consider that fewer women are pursuing STEM-related degrees. The National Science Foundation reports that, in 2012, fewer than 18% of undergraduate computing degrees were awarded to women, down from 37% in 1985. And a study by Women in Technology International reveals that, while 56% of professional positions in the U.S are held by women, they hold only 25% of IT jobs.
The numbers get even more worrisome. Only 11% of tech company executives are women; 5% of tech start-ups are owned by women; 56% of women who enter the field of technology leave for other careers. Part of the problem is that women earn significantly less than men for the same work. In computer programming, they earn 5% less; as software engineers, they earn 9% less; and women who are computer and information system managers are 18% behind their male counterparts.
A good deal of the current literature on the subject provides ample reasons why organizations and the nation would benefit by including the female perspective in the policy-making and strategy-developing ranks of the technology sector.
Studies show that women on tech teams boost problem-solving and creativity; teams with at least one female outperform all-male groups in collective intelligence tests; and ROI is 34% higher for tech companies with women in management. So, why isn’t there a more welcoming and supportive environment for women in technology?
Stereotypes of women as being less qualified than men for leadership positions, in spite of research and historical examples to the contrary, still exist to an alarming extent among boards, investors and others with great influence over the choice of organizational leaders. But, when women exhibit leadership characteristics desired in men – hard-driving, can-do attitude and other “culturally masculine” qualities – they are often viewed as aggressive or “cold-hearted” and unlikely to be a good fit.
Women are riding a Catch-22 merry-go-round. One of the recognized keys to a leadership role is support and sponsorship. Men have learned how to identify, and even position, future male leaders and help them join their ranks. Since there are far fewer women at that level, there are fewer role models and the numbers are even lower when seeking women with the time or inclination to assist another women. This is, unfortunately, even more pronounced within the tech sector.
So, women are left with male role models and often conform to those behaviors, and by doing so they give up the very things that make them unique and provide their organizations with a perspective not offered by their male colleagues. That perspective is based on a set of experiences different from men’s. Such a perspective can broaden and deepen an organization’s insight, making it more effective and agile; keys to successfully meeting future business challenges.
The tech world will only continue to grow – critical for the nation’s international trade and security – and successfully face emerging global competitive challenges by utilizing all the talent available. That includes recognizing and supporting women for leadership roles.
Women who aspire to those roles also have work to do. They must be ready to assume and succeed in those positions by preparing academically; identifying forward-thinking organizations for employment; and seeking supportive sponsors, women who have achieved success as organizational leaders.
Organizations that will succeed will be those that recognize and encourage the unique point of view women offer, and create a welcoming and supportive environment for women and men alike. Until that happens, it will be hard for women in technology (or anywhere else) to move into the leadership positions for which they are qualified and which they have earned.