Changing demographics, consumer patterns, and wealth
distribution in emerging markets all point to the importance of developing the untapped
potential of women leaders. Harnessing the know-how, experience, and
professionalism of high-potential internal women leaders is an essential value
proposition for most businesses.
Many corporations are realigning and recovering from the
economic downtown, requiring a more transformational approach to
leadership.Much of the gender
leadership research points to the more transformational aspects of female
leadership including ability to innovate, collaborate, motivate, communicate,
and intuit.To what extent is your
company fully leveraging this advantage?
The pharmaceutical industry in particular is struggling with
both a changing market and re-invention of itself.Populations are aging in the West. In more
mature markets in Asia, such as Japan and Hong Kong, primary caregivers and
decision makers are and will continue to be women.Many of the areas of new specialty drug
development focus on female-related diseases.Yet a small percentage of the sales force and development are
women.
This industry must also undergo a transformation to recover
from the number of blockbuster drugs that are moving to generic brands.
Pharmaceutical companies must continue to innovate and bring to market life-saving
drugs and protocols.Transformation
and re-invention are also called for given the radical worldwide shifts in the
consumer base and increasing health regulation. In the face of these daunting
challenges, the reality is that only a small percentage of pharmaceutical
leadership is women.
This crisis has pointed to the strategic importance of women
to the growth and vitality of the entire industry. Clearly a new investment must
be made to ensure that women rise to significant levels of leadership, that
they remain with their companies, and that they bring their sensibilities about
the consumer to development, sales and marketing.
I’ve just returned from the first week of a year-long
strategic leadership development program for women in a global pharmaceutical
company.This organization targeted 30
leaders from around the world who have both significant global team leadership
responsibilities and profit & loss responsibilities.
These women, from almost every continent, are one level
below the executive leadership.It is
anticipated many will be promoted during or after the program, as well
as make a significant contribution to business-critical issues and to the
creation of an inclusive culture throughout the year.
Many of these women have felt isolated in their respective
functions around the world, and that they have had to deny the feminine aspects
of their leadership as they’ve tried to fit into a strong male leadership model
of action, direction, competition and hierarchy.When invited to the program, there was
resistance on their part to be associated with a program that only included
women because they didn’t want to be seen as needing anything special or different
than men.At the end of the week, they
recognized the value of the unique nature of this program and have found
language to share its importance with men without feeling diminished.
The CEO of this multi-billion dollar company met with the
participants four times over the week, as did a number of members of his
executive team, both as faculty and for networking reasons.Six of the executives are sponsoring
business-critical projects around the world with teams of participants from
diverse parts of the business and world. Their goal is to tap the diversity of
thought and unique perspectives to generate creative solutions to important
projects.Each participant has a cross-functional
mentor and an external coach.They have
participated in a 360 feedback process and spent time identifying and sharing
their leadership journey with each other.They have seen incredible value in building their network across most
organizational functions and geographic regions.Experts in both business strategy and
leadership development have engaged with them over the course of the week,
leaving them both stimulated and reflective.
It was thrilling to see an industry-leading global
pharmaceutical company fully embracing of the uniqueness and advantages of
being a woman leader. Feedback from the participants over course of the week,
and strong affirmation from the executives, validated that a tailored leadership
development program was essential to their ability to ensure a strong pipeline
of women to the executive level.
The most extraordinary moment came for me on the last
evening of the program when the CEO, the CFO and head of R&D shared their
leadership stories.The CEO shared that
he had been in a talent review meeting that day, and that participation in
various parts of the program had influenced their process and discussion around
women and their potential as leaders.This was the assurance that the intense level of effort to establish,
brand, and build this program wouldn’t stay just with the women, but would
extend into the overall corporate culture as well.
The CEO's parting words assured the participants that he and
his team would explore their own unconscious biases as the participants had, and
do whatever work they needed to do to build and sustain and inclusive culture.
I was very moved at dinner on the last night when a
participant shared with me how affirming the program was, how valuable she considered
her professional coach, the incredible opportunity to network with smart
accomplished women from around the world, how stimulated and excited she was to
work on this challenging business project, and how transformative she believed
the program would be for her personally and for the organization.
Personal transformation, organizational transformation, and transforming
lives.This is why I do what I do.
If you have an exciting story about women’s leadership
development, please share it with me. I can be reached at lesliet@cookross.com.
A simple phone call can make you see your world in a new and different way. Just yesterday, I received a phone call from a dear friend and
colleague.She is a much admired and respected
academician at an excellent college.She is exquisitely intelligent,
thoughtful and earnest.
She shared with me an experience she had recently had at an
academic conference.In the course of a
series of presentations over the two days of the conference, she observed her
female colleagues being systematically denigrated by a particular male
professor through a variety of behaviors.He interrupted and spoke whenever he felt the urge.He obviously and loudly worked on his
computer while people presented.He made
side comments to other men in the group.He challenged the scholarship of the women presenters’ arguments.And no matter how he was approached, in
whatever polite ways he was asked to “wait his turn,” he continued.
And never once did he display this kind of behavior when a man was
presenting.
It is easy to cast aside these clearly rude and boorish behaviors
as the acts of a person who simply has no appropriate social graces, however it
is all too familiar.In its more egregious
forms, like this, we see the damage clearly.But in other daily subtle ways, this kind of gender-based exclusionary behavior
occurs with painful regularity. Bottom line: it undermines not only the women
we work with, but also the very structures of our organizations.
The behavior is not obvious, and, for the most part, not
conscious.Who gets noticed when they
present an idea?Who gets interrupted,
and who believes that they have the “right” to speak when they want.Who controls the energy, the tone, the pace,
and the topic of the conversation?Who
“expects” to be listened to?
Is it always men who perpetrate these kinds of behaviors?No.Is
it more often men?Probably.We have been trained by society to accept and
engage in these behaviors.
I know that I have engaged in these behaviors.I am a recovering “entitled male.”
I don’t say that to self-flagellate.I actually don’t feel that guilt is
particularly helpful in these kinds of circumstances. Guilt shuts us down
rather than opening us up.But I know
that as a tall, white man in this culture, I have been taught to believe that
my voice counts, probably more than others.This is not a comfortable realization, and when it’s called to my
attention it can be quite embarrassing, given what I do for a living.But, nonetheless, I have to admit that it
happens.
And it happens with people I care about.My family members, my business associates,
and my wife, who also happens to be my business partner.
I’m not writing this as a mea culpa, nor as a way to purge my
soul.I’m writing it as an invitation
for all of us to be willing to take a deeper look at ourselves.We all need to vigilantly watch where we have
privilege and how we exercise it, and to be willing to engage with it.
Mostly I‘m addressing this topic so that we can all begin to take
responsibility for changing these patterns of societal teaching that people
from allgender perspectives and
backgrounds have absorbed.
At some point, my friend went to one of her male colleagues and
asked for his support.She asked him if
he would speak to the offender, since she was sure, from her experience of the
offender’s behavior, that he would more likely respond to a man than a
woman.But the male colleague felt
uncomfortable stepping in and stopping this boorish behavior.
That’s where I say we need allies and leaders of all stripes
to step up.We have to realize that it
is not only the person who is victimized who has a responsibility to call for inappropriate
behavior to stop.It is all of our
responsibility.When we sit back and let
people around us act in abusive ways, we might as well be perpetrators of their
behavior.When we sit silently and judge
others and their behavior without acting, we are not aligned with
integrity.We are part of the problem.
And the cost?Allowing
behavior like this, even in its subtler forms, increases attrition of valuable
employees, chokes off creativity, lowers staff morale, negatively impacts
productivity, undermines leadership, and decreases performance.It costs organizations billions of dollars every year.
When we sit back and silently let the insult and/or damage
happen, or when we unconsciously engage in it ourselves without the willingness
to self-inquire, we might as well be pouring our organizations resources down
the drain.
Silence may be golden, but, in cases like this, it is awfully
expensive.
I am excitedly looking forward to seeing many of you in New York City on February 9, 2010 for Diversity Best Practices Global Session. This year’s event, hosted by The New York Times Company is:
Learn How to Sustain and Build Global Diversity and Inclusion Initiatives in Front and Center of the Business
The event centers around three provocative topics:
Implementing Global Gender Strategies: Utilizing Metrics and Accountability for Driving Gender Equality
The Workforce and Long-term Implications: Innovative Strategies for People with Disabilities
Corporate Social Responsibility as a Vehicle to Deliver Diversity and Inclusion Results
The session I will co-lead, with Dr. Rohini Anand, Senior Vice President & Global Chief Diversity Officer, Sodexo, is Implementing Global Gender Strategies: Utilizing Metrics and Accountability for Driving Gender Equality from 9:05-10:00 a.m.
Rohini is one of the preeminent Chief Diversity Officers in the world and I am very pleased to have the chance to work with her on this critical topic.
Here is the session description:
Powerful social and economic change is brought about when girls and women have the opportunity to participate in their society. The gender gap remains a main focus as US Secretary Clinton stated in her November 6th speech that advancing the right of women is now a cornerstone of USforeign policy. Women perform 66 percent of the world’s work and produce 50 percent of the food, while earning 10 percent of the income and owning 1 percent of the property (United Nations Development Fund for Women 2008). Global corporations can impact the position of women through greater attention on the advancement of women inside their walls. An increasing number of global female executives can be positioned to impact the global economy through their decision making. Developing those leaders has been a challenge. This session explores a systemic model for bringing more women into the global ranks of corporations, and how those efforts can be measured.
For more information, and to register for the event, click here.
Thanks for your ongoing support and collaboration.
There have been recent predictions that we’ve hit the bottom of the global economic downturn. It is hoped that companies on the Dow will begin posting more regular gains and that the U.S. is leading the recovery. These predictions however don’t describe the impact of the recession on the workforce or on the delicate racial balance within management ranks.
Many corporations and professional services firms have worked vigorously over the past 20 years to bring more Blacks/African Americans into their doors, to sensitize their environments to diversity and cultural differences, to “level the playing field” for promotion and advancement, and to leverage those differences for the benefit of their customers. Given this portfolio of activity, one is left then with the question: Why have blacks seemed to have fared worse in layoffs in the past 6 months?
A handful of observers from a variety of professions have noted that the primary determinant for workforce reduction is performance, and that African Americans appear to have been over-represented in the pool of poor performers.
The main determinant of performance is the performance review, which under the best circumstances is moderately objective, and in the worst circumstance pointedly subjective. Of all organizational systems and structures in the workplace, the performance review has the greatest opportunity of perpetuating bias, with the greatest impact on individual careers, and perceptions of group success.
Performance reviews too often look something like this:
Sasha was a rising second year, African American associate, and the only African American in her practice. She came to the firm with two years of internship in public accounting. She is a member of NABA and was in the top 10% of her class. She has passed 2 segments of the CPA exam. Sasha worked on 2 engagements in her first year. Her senior, Jonathan, felt challenged by Sasha on her first engagement because she didn’t spend social time with the team after hours. Jonathan thought she was “stand-offish.” He wasn’t comfortable with her seeming isolation, and lack of social interaction with the team. Technically she did fine, although she didn’t ask a lot of clarifying questions for her assignments. At the end of the engagement, Jonathan told his manager: “She did ok, got the procedures right and worked hard, but wasn’t easy to get along with, certainly not compared to the others.
Jonathan’s manager, Christopher, took that under advisement, and when his colleague Nancy asked for a recommendation for an associate, Jonathan noted that Sasha was currently underutilized after the first engagement, that she was available, but “a little difficult to work with.” Nancy assigned Sasha to the job, and told her senior that she’d heard that Sasha was good technically and needed some support “fitting in to the team.” This is the lens through which Nancy’s senior made job assignments for Sasha’s second engagement, and became the brand by which she is known.
Sasha’s performance manager, Carolyn, collected feedback from the managers on all the engagements on which Sasha had worked, and includes a few passing comments from the practice partners as she prepared the review. The firm has a variety of standards on teamwork and professionalism, both of which are considered along with technical execution. Sasha came out of her first review with a low 3, rather than a 3 or even a 4. Hers was the lowest review score in the practice.
When it came to identifying candidates for reduction in force, Sasha rose to the top. This clearly could have been prevented by greater awareness, sensitivity and cultural competency on behalf of her senior. This is an individual case, but unfortunately not a unique one. When looked at in the aggregate, there are a seemingly disproportionate number of African Americans at all levels tagged as poor performers, and being let go because of the economic downturn.
Bias is pervasive, regardless of race, gender, age, sexual orientation, or national origin. It is a survival mechanism on the most basic level. It is part of the human experience. For many of us it is largely unconscious. We don’t even recognize our own biases. Ironically this can be especially true among people who have participated in targeted diversity and inclusion training because we come to believe that “only bad people have bias.” According to this classic way of thinking, good people get it, aren’t biased, and are supportive, and bad people are biased, say stupid things, and are working “against the cause.” Bias is particularly difficult to recognize among individuals who feel that they are “good,” supportive of equity and inclusion, and believe in the value that diversity brings to a profession. Many people in our profession feel that they’ve already “gotten it.”
The first opportunity to avoid promoting our own discomforts with each other as performance-based truths is in recognizing that we all have biases that are expressed in our day-to-day world. This recognition allows us to explore the genesis of these discomforts. If we determine that indeed we have a racial bias, they most often exist because of our historical experiences. Many of us were raised in homogeneous environments and are influenced by the media; this patterning is hard to undo.
If we can recognize our biases, then we have more opportunity to pause, ask clarifying questions, and discern which workplace behaviors describe performance and potential. Recognizing our biases also allows us to realize that the more someone is like the evaluator, the greater the chance for symmetry and comfort, and the less reliable our “gut” reactions are. Identifying observable behaviors with a breadth of allowance for cultural difference will have the effect of examining performance from a more equitable set of standards. Finally, establishing structures that require multiple formal, diverse opinions for performance reviews recognizes the potential for bias in the process, and builds in a more balanced perspective.
Our economy cannot afford any unnecessary loss of Blacks/African Americans. Their representation in many professions is too thin. The need to have a highly regarded diverse professional core is too great to lose talented minorities just because their expression, their socialization, their style, and their communication may be different in some way that is uncomfortable for others.
I remember in 1999, an interesting phenomena became apparent to me when we were hired to assist the Atlanta Braves after their pitcher John Rocker was quoted making racist and homophobic comments in Sports Illustrated. Extreme statements, like Rocker's, tend to create interesting reactions in all directions.
A few weeks ago, General Peter Pace created some controversy when he was quoted as saying that homosexuality was immoral. Comments like General Pace's or Rocker's have an interesting impact because they accentuate the dialogue in both directions.
On the other hand, people who agree with the General's point of view might be emboldened to speak it out loud, as in the case of the story reported this week about an army recruiter's blatantly homophobic e-mails.
It is important, as leaders, for us to realize that our words may have power beyond just ourselves.
