Connect With Jane
Archive for the ‘Careers’ Category
Consider this – politics is not a dirty word. Yet this word brings up negative feelings, emotions and sometimes fear. Many try to ignore office politics when it happens, pretending it does not exist. But like it or not, it’s here to stay. Politics (good and bad) is an established fact of organizational life. Embrace what’s good about it!
Laugh (at least inside) when someone proclaims in all seriousness, “There are no politics here. We don’t allow it!” Allowed or not, the statement is ludicrous. Whenever there are two or more people collaborating for any reason, you’re witnessing and engaging in politics. So accept the reality. Move away from thinking negatively.
Re-frame your thinking to the constructive, affirming side of politics. That’s the first step.
The second step: build relationships
The secret of positive politics is building relationships. No coded handshakes, passwords or clubs. It’s all about managing stakeholders and the networks you influence. (And, those of influence). Some see this as manipulative, but great consultants learn and embrace the skill.
The third step: evaluate your network
Think of your organization as a giant social media network – LinkedIn or Face book. Take a look at your connections. How many do you have? Even more important: how many of your connections are decision makers? It is not about the number of followers but all about who you can tap into when you need career advice or to sell your next big idea?
Business Leaders are political masters; they understand themselves, their teams, and their environments. Watch any successful leader and you’ll see a great politician – a relationship builder.
There’s an art to building relationships. It’s about intention. Each time you go out of your way to meet someone new, it should not be about you but about the advice you can offer. Think about your connections today.
Talented women leaving the firm – puzzling? Not really, the fact is women or men not moving ahead will leave. Nothing new there. Yet, employers continue to wring their hands, hire high priced consultants to help the female brain drain. Yes the problem is complex, if we want it to be. But there are simple measures to put in place that may slow down the departures. One of the biggest issues is the lack of role models or opportunities to move ahead.
To change this, organizations need to stop thinking women have different family priorities. Women and men both have responsibilities for family commitments. According to recent McKinsey research most women don’t choose to leave as some do not have this option. And, if they stay they want opportunities to advance – just like anyone else. If not, they will find opportunities elsewhere. Simple.
It is not only family friendly policies and certainly policies only for women exacerbate the problem. By the way, these policies for women only – does not make sense. The policy is family, so why not include both.
Deloitte & Touche, one of the top four audit firms has looked into “certain measures to encourage female employees to stay…” Great, but how about opportunities outside of audit? And does taking family friendly time off hamper careers – most women (and some men) think so…. but Deloitte says otherwise….thinking that more women will remain with the firm (and in Audit) if they know there will be equal career opportunities offered to them even if they take on a reduced workload.
Yet some organizations realize even with family flexible policies, women still leave. Why? Could it be the manager, compensation, opportunities for advancement, or how about I am just bored and need a new opportunity?
Find out what people want and give it to them. Stop with the blanket approach, one size fits all, and one sided policies. Smart companies use a marketing approach segmenting benefits to fit the needs of their employees. In so doing, they increase engagement and save money. Similar to focus groups for customers, when an employee leaves they call them to find out why. Great idea and best to use an external firm for these calls; savvy employees learn never to burn bridges or swap war stories about a narcissistic boss. Most feel comfortable sharing the real reason for leaving with an anonymous third party.
So what is the number one reason why people leave or stay? Typically – the boss – nothing new here.
No one sees the world in the same way. Bias is not good or bad; it just is. The sad thing is that we make many decisions—particularly hiring decisions— based on subjective and unconscious biases and then we enumerate very conscious reasons to justify those decisions.
Do People Make a Conscious Decision to Discriminate?
In the vast majority of cases: NO. But a few telltale statistics throw a spotlight on the matter:
- Fewer than 15% of American men are over six foot tall; nearly 60% of corporate CEOs are over six foot tall.
- Women comprise 51% of the workforce; fewer than 3% of CEO’s in Fortune 500 companies are women.
Why does this happen?
Clearly corporate boards of directors do not send out a message to “Get us a tall guy,” or specify that “We only want a man,” but these numbers speak for themselves.
Unconscious bias cuts across private and public sectors.
How many heads of state are women?
It seems unfair, patently absurd to choose a CEO because of height or gender, just as it is unfair and absurd to give employees lower performance evaluations because they’re less vocal or visible. Nor is refusing to hire someone because they speak with an accent a particularly wise decision.
But every day doctors prescribe procedures to people more often due to a preconceived notions about community and affiliation.
And every day we treat people differently depending upon their attire.
And we statistically call on men more often than women when hands are raised at a meeting.
All of the above, and more, happens regularly to the detriment of others, without most of us consciously recognizing that we’re guilty as charged.
We can only achieve true diversity when organizations raise awareness about bias. We need to bring it to the surface where we can examine and acknowledge it. Unconscious or hidden beliefs underlie far too many of our behaviour patterns.
Bias impacts literally everything we do at work:
- Recruitment
- Hiring
- Interviewing
- Mentoring
- Promotion
- Job Rotations
- Performance Reviews
- Talent Management
- Board Members
- Policy
Unconscious patterns can play out in ways that are so subtle they are hard to spot, think about the conversations you have and the bias you hold – and – remember this reflection the next time you’re making a decision that is crucial to the long-term viability of your enterprise.
Bias: Have A Consequential Conversation
Headlines the past few weeks have been-almost ad nauseum-about boardroom quotas. You would have to be living under a rock in the middle of the forest not to notice the lack of women in boardrooms and executive positions. Germany, Hong Kong and the United States are all in the same spot – hovering around 8-12% representation of women on boards. No country is exempt except Norway.
Pundits have provided reasons and catch-all titles for the disparity; a glass ceiling/sticky floor, organizational cultures, Off-On ramps, and the hard driving, male dominated work environment. All make sense, some are right, others questionable, a few are predictable, and the same story and same reasons have been around for decades.
Despite greater awareness, research, and policies, little has changed, and according Facebooks’s COO, Sheryl Sanderberg, the numbers are on a downward trend.
The visible lack of diversity is fuelling the quota debates- but why do we keep looking in the same places, examine the same things, only to return lukewarm solutions?
Fact: women are the majority of the workforce, overtaking men in university, and a sizeable percentage of middle management. Moving past management, the numbers drop off dramatically – in some organizations the drop off is steep- from 30 to 3%. Looking at the numbers, it’s time to broaden our scope of inquiry on boardroom quotas. It is nearly impossible to achieve board targets for women if their representation dissipates beyond middle management.
Look under the well worn corporate carpets for answers, and also ask the few women lingering on the fringes. Last year, I did just that and discovered two [seemingly] unrelated forces colliding that sheds light on the prevailing discussions.
What are these forces? One is Organizational change and the other is Mid-way career cycle. When the two meet head on, women (more than men), reflect, review and reconsider career choices.
To better understand the duality and dynamic, we need to review Jungian psychology. Jung viewed life in two halves. The first half focuses on finding a place in the external world and in the second looks inward to find self.
We have all heard the jokes about a mid-life crisis. The stereotype for men is the new sports car, leather jacket, gelled hair, or new paramour-or all. For women, midlife is internal struggles, questioning life and purpose. While midlife and mid career discussions occur at the same for men and women, the impact is shown and acted on very differently.
An organizational change on top of midlife creates introspection and evaluation of choices – to stay or leave. During such uncertainty, employees cope with upheaval, power shifts, and turf battles. These power struggles go well beyond turf, and include choosing sides, loyalty, new and old teams, location, and gossip borne of the unknown. That ‘perfect storm’ where bias and nepotism triumph rational thinking.
Small wonder that often the best and the brightest are the first to exit during change – of course, organizations can dig deep into their pockets and provide long term financial incentives to stay.
If midlife is a period of intense self-reflection and self-awareness is a critical leadership skill, is it not gravely important to secure this talent before, during and after a restructuring? Not only do organizations run the risk of talented women leaving, these women leave at a critical period of leadership ascension. Midpoint for women is roughly between the ages of 35 – 55 . Which is, of course, the sweet spot of career and for organizations the two decades in which to make ones mark.
Five executive women I interviewed last year shared harrowing stories about calamities during a business restructure. All five were prominent business executives, stellar careers, multiple promotions, exemplary performance with bonuses to match. All were either moved on or decided to leave.
The details of the stories would make any sane person’s blood boil and have all the markings for a great thriller. Three of the five had similar stories but weren’t working for the same company. These three had over fifteen years tenure with their respective companies, and all were called to a meeting to discuss what they thought was the restructuring–only to be introduced to a new boss.
Each new boss had substantially less experience and knowledge about the function, but they had all mentored their [now] new boss, and he had been elevated to a position above them. All five sought legal advice and all were told they had solid cases to litigate. None moved forward with any legal action.
These women and their respective organizations had spent years preparing them for leadership roles. Once they were nearly there, a few too many restructures ended five great careers on a bad note. Who loses in this situation? Everyone.
Organizations cannot evaluate every employee’s mental state or map out the political landscape before a restructuring exercise, but capturing the hearts and minds of employees in midcareer is incredible financial value and goodwill.
Yet too often the engagement focus and concern rests with the (typically male) senior team. One, two or sometimes three levels below – the bulk of management are women. Instead of debating the value of quotas, organizations need to tap into individual potential, motivation and engagement – particularly women.
It’s not about board room quotas, it’s all about understanding motivation of mid-career women before they walk out the door.
