Psst…This is what prejudice sounds like

Sara offers: There were many heroes during the horrific shooting at Fort Hood, but one who grabbed our attention is Sgt. Kimberly Munley.  She responded to a radio call and was instrumental in taking out the shooter.  But I have to tell you…I am so tired of hearing about this “petite blonde.”  One report described her as “tiny but tenacious.”  Did you know she weighs 120 pounds?   I noticed that as I read on that no one described her partner (Sgt. Mark Todd) as a “strapping brunette” or a “stocky, slightly balding but tough” cop.  Actually, I have no idea what Sgt Todd looks like – by the way, he hasn’t gotten any photo coverage.  But what’s the difference here?   No really, what’s the difference?  She is described in physical terms, he is not.  This is about subtle prejudice; what do those little feminine descriptors really mean?  It may just be a cute way to get our attention.  Why does it need to be “cute?”  Stop asking us to look at Sgt. Munley as though she is little girl.  If you read What Men Don’t Tell Women about  Business, Christopher V. Flett invests a whole book describing how people take advantage of others through subtle prejudice and manipulation.   My message is: We must recognize prejudice in our own language and stop it.

 Cheryl offers: A huge THANK YOU to Sara for raising the awareness in me and likely many others!

Want to make the most of $100K?

Cheryl offers:  The New York Times ran an article on October 26, 2009 entitled “Fund Plans to Invest in Companies with Women as Directors”. The referenced company is Naissance Capital and is located in Zurich Switzerland, one of my favorite cities in all Europe. I lived there for a year on assignment and was struck by the number of women who either ran for public office or were highly visible in influencing social change such as the cleanup of Lake Geneva.  Knowing the Swiss, I wasn’t really surprised to see a company like this who will select companies for investment who have women on their board of directors. What did surprise me was their frank statement they would avoid investing in companies who did not have women on their boards.  The size of the fund is also impressive: $200M now with plans to grow to $2B. While Naissance did not delve into great detail regarding their unique strategy, anyone who wants to learn more on why this is a fantastic idea should check out Why Women Mean Business: Understanding the Emergence of our next Economic Revolution by authors Avivah Wittenberg-Cox and Alison Maitland.  The authors provide a compelling and well researched book summarizing both American and European studies on how the presence of women is affecting such interesting current topics as ethics, ROI, and change. Now, if I were a betting person, I’d place my $100K on the Naissance Capital horse. Don’t like the Swiss? Try Stargate Capital in the UK or Amazone Euro located in of all places, Geneva, Switzerland!

Take Your Brain to Lunch

Cheryl: On August 12, 2009, over 90 women and men attended the inaugural event of Take Your Brain to Lunch focusing on women’s business topics. We were honored by the positive and insightful survey results at the conclusion of the event and will host these every other month starting in January 2010.

Today we announced our second event in 2009 where we will review 2 relevant business books on the consuming theme of work/life balance. This program is open to everyone, not just women.  We will continue to focus on the topics which seem top of mind for today’s women; so guys, come on over and hang out with us to learn the inside scoop! On November 11, 2009 Randy Mayeux will deliver 2 books synopsis over lunch at the Park City Club, Dallas TX.  The books are The Power of Full Engagement:  Managing Energy, Not Time, Is the Key to High Performance and Personal Renewal by Jim Loehr and Tony Schwartz and Getting Things Done: The Art of Stressfree Productivity by David Allen.

While I haven’t read David Allen’s book, I read The Power of Full Engagement a few years ago and have frequently recommended it to coaching clients.  When I read books, I use a yellow highlighter.  On page 5, I found “To be fully engaged, we must be physically energized, emotionally connected, mentally focused and spiritually aligned with a purpose beyond our immediate self-interest.”   You can tell I was hooked right from the beginning; this truly resonated with my own experience. When I’ve found myself “in the zone” so to speak, these characteristics have been present in spades.  Perhaps my favorite toward the end of the book is “When we have blind spots, we can blind side others without even being aware that we are doing so.”  How true this has been when I was open to feedback regarding my blind spots, ouch! I loved the stories of “corporate athletes” and found much of the advice regarding changes simple, straight forward, and common sense; and of course, challenging! Simple does not mean easy. Come join us for lunch on Wednesday, November 11 to hear the wisdom in this book along with what Randy will share from Getting Things Done. Networking, good books, dialogue with smart professionals, and lunch, YUM!

Sara is taking some well deserved vacation this week.  She will be at Take Your Brain to Lunch!

————-

Click here to register for the November 11 event.

Vote for Androgynous Leadership

Cheryl offers:  There’s a lot of debate in the media right now over whether or not more women in the upper ranks of the financial leadership files would have prevented the current economic situation.  In most of them, women and men seem to get “labeled” with all kinds of characteristics, usually stated as if they were fact based on profound research; usually they are not. Samuel Taylor Coleridge once said. “The truth is a great mind must be androgynous” and I tend to agree with him. This infers a great mind would have both female and male characteristics (the best of both worlds so to speak).  In Daniel H. Pink’s book, “A Whole New Mind – Why Right Brainers Will Rule the Future” he proposes the idea we are moving from the Information Age, dominated by an economy and society built on logical, linear, and computer-like capabilities (think left brain hemisphere and robotic traders on Wall Street) to one called the Conceptual Age characterized by inventive, empathetic, big picture thinking found primarily in the right hemisphere of the brain.  Hmmm…makes me wonder if he’s not correct! How different would our world be if the financial world had not been driven so much by numbers and had instead considered the long-term big picture with an empathetic view on the potential impact on those being affected? This is neither a male nor female view of the world. It’s androgynous and requires the whole brain to be engaged. Research has repeatedly proven more women in upper ranks of leadership will produce better financial and qualitative results. I vote for androgynous leadership rather than new financial laws!

Sara is out of the country on business.

Be bold – ask for what you want!

Cheryl offers: Our business, like so many others, has enjoyed the affects of the economy. You know I use the word “enjoyed” with a smile here.  We recently decided to sit back and look at our business activity to see what we noticed. It was pretty apparent. We weren’t asking for enough business. Now this is embarrassing to admit, since we both spent a fair amount of our careers in sales. It occurs to me how easily it is to slip into what I might call “complacency habits”.  A good economy helps you do that. We also reminded ourselves of the research in the book, “Women Don’t Ask” by Sarah Laschever and Linda Babcock. “Wanting things for oneself (like business deals if you are an entrepreneur) and doing whatever may be necessary to get those things-such as asking for them-often clashes with the social expectation that a woman will devote her attention to the needs of others and pay less attention to her own.”  As a result of this well spent time in contemplation, we began to proactively ASK different questions. Amazingly, business is emerging from conversations almost every day. Thank goodness. Now I wonder, “What else have I become complacent about that the new economy might help me remember?”

Sara adds:   Could be questions…could be courage.  When I read what Cheryl offered, I thought of Richard Carson’s, “Taming Your Gremlins.”   Carson helps explain the voice in my head.  You know the one, the one that says, “You should be happy with what you have” or “Don’t ask for too much, you probably aren’t worth it.”   For me, it that voice that what keeps me from asking for the business and following up aggressively.  Carson explains, “Your gremlin is the narrator in your head…he uses some of your past experiences to hypnotize you into forming and living your life in accordance with self-limiting and sometimes frightening generalizations about you.”  No wonder Carson calls it a gremlin!  But there’s hope!  The first step in stilling the voice is in becoming AWARE that it’s just a voice. Then bring in the courage.  The voice would hold us back.  Courage puts the voice in the background and action in the foreground.  Wondering how to make that happen?   Join us next week – we’ll talk about overcoming our own status quo!

Leadership Insights from Meryl Streep

Cheryl observes:  In Meryl Streep’s recent interview about her role as Julia Childs in the movie, “Julie and Julia” I found something she said very intriguing “…we’re all sustained by relationships. Sometimes it’s by marriages, great friendships, by a sustaining relationship to a parent. But that’s the glue of society; it’s very home-centered and very simple.”  After I read this, I thought to myself, so true and not so simple to have the kinds of relationships at work that we could honestly classify them as fulfilling, energizing, and joyful.  I can’t even count how many people I’ve heard lately lament how much they hate their jobs followed shortly by “but at least I have one.” In one of my favorite small and yet profoundly wise leadership books, Creating a Culture of Success,  by Charles B. Dygert and Richard A. Jacobs, they write “It is not work that tires people out; it is frustration. And frustration is generally introduced by the boss, the system, the policies, or the work environment.” When I think what makes me crazy about work, I find these guys have nailed it! As the recession fades, my question for today’s leaders is “What’s the quality of the relationships in your environment?” After all, Meryl is right. We are all sustained by relationships.

 

Sara adds:   I would push Cheryl’s questions a little further.  “WHERE are your relationships?”   Clint Swindall in Engaged Leadership talks about why employees are disengaged (those are some of the frustrated folk Cheryl referred to).  “There may be several reasons, but perhaps the most significant is that most leaders are spending more time managing tasks and not nearly enough time leading people.  If you don’t believe that observation, just spend one day without your cell phone, PDA or email.  You’ll find out quickly how much of your “hectic day” is spent managing the business and putting out fires and not leading the people on your team.”   So where are your relationships…with people or with spreadsheets?   A leader has to focus on both – which get more of your time…managing the business or leading the people?  And when the economy turns around and there are more jobs available, will your human assets stay or leave?

Curiosity is High-Test Fuel

Cheryl offers: A few months ago, we decided to create a new offering for women’s business topics. Since we regularly attend the First Friday Book Synopsis, and we read a lot of books on women’s issues, we thought it might be interesting to blend the two concepts. That’s how we came up with the idea of Take Your Brain to Lunch. What we have learned over the past months while working on SMU’s new women’s leadership program, Women in Motion, is both men and women are interested in understanding each other better. They both see the value of appreciating the other’s perspectives. In diversity, there is great strength. With women now occupying more jobs in the U. S. than men, graduating with more degrees then men and projected to do so for many years to come, it’s imperative we all work together to deepen our individual understanding of how things are changing, or not. In their book, How the Way We Talk Can Change the Way We Work, by Robert Kegan and Lisa Laskow Lahey, they tell us “Curiosity is the high-test fuel for the engine of learning.” Once we noticed the shared curiosity surrounding women’s business topics, all we had to do was build an engine. When we started we optimistically aspired to attract 40 people to our first event; we have more than 80 and pushing 100! Personally, I have been amazed and inspired by the interest that is apparent in all generations, across all industries for learning. Way to go Dallas!

Sara adds:  It’s good to talk about being curious; but how do you know you are doing “it” (being curious, that is)?   Here are some ideas.  If you are interested in the other person and their ideas, you are being curious.  If you aren’t trying to justify your own idea – you are interested in someone else’s, you are being curious.  If you get outside of your own thoughts and ways of doing things and consider new ideas, you are being curious.  Frederick Schmitt and Reza Lahroodi have written an article on “The Epistemic Value of Curiosity” and offer 4 important values of curiosity:

1. Curiosity is tenacious: curiosity about whether something is true leads to curiosity about related issues, thereby deepening knowledge.
2. Curiosity is often biased in favor of topics in which we already have a practical interest.
3. Curiosity is largely independent of our interests: it broadens our knowledge.
4. Curiosity jumpstarts learning and when you embrace curiosity, you become a lifetime learner

And when we think of successful leaders, they are almost always curious.  I guess the lesson here is to proactively look beyond what we know and believe to be true in order to find what is truly possible.

Jerry Jones, the Cowboys ARE created in your image and they struggle to be a team

From Sara:  Open letter to Jerry Jones:  “Jerry, I heard you interviewed on TV last night and you were asked about the chemistry of the Cowboys football team.  You basically told the reporters that good chemistry would happen when the team wins.  You went on to explain that bad chemistry is to be expected when the team loses…in fact, I think your conclusion was that “chemistry” isn’t important in your locker room.  I am not surprised the enormous talents of these athletes don’t translate into a winning team.  Do you hear your own message, Jerry?  You are devaluing the very element that your game is missing – being a team.  You can’t just pay people and expect them to be a team.  There are so many directions to take the conversation from here!  I could point you towards building teamwork by reading Good to Great by Jim Collins; or talk about the responsibility the leader has to results as described in Primal Leadership by Goleman, Boyatzis, McKee. (BTW,  those are both relevant topics for the Cowboy organization.)  In my role as  executive coach, I would ask you “How are you regarding the players?”  You seem to view them as objects; you pay them so they should do what you want. Martin Buber the 20^th century philosopher calls that an “I-It” relationship.  That’s where you treat people as commodities, not as people.  There is better way.  It is to see and treat people like people. Want to win the Super Bowl?  Read Leadership and Self Deception by the Arbinger Institute and give me a call.

Cheryl Adds: Most people might tell you that it wasn’t the words you spoke last night in that interview that they recall, it was the emotions you displayed. There was arrogance and blame plain as day. It was the underlying tone saying, in other words “It’s not my fault; blame someone else.” And what great justification you have for feeling that way; after all, you pay all the money so it must be someone else’s fault. What’s missing is the acknowledgement that emotions are contagious as pointed out in Resonant Leadership by Annie McKee and Richard Boyatzis. This translates into an emotional viral infection of the team where every member of the Cowboys now has permission to say and worse, feel the same way. Any time a group is saying to themselves, “It’s someone else’s fault for this result”, in your case losing, then the culture created is one of blame and no trust. How can team members work together effectively with no trust? And who is working on taking responsibility and thus working on a solution to this problem if they are busy pointing fingers towards their team mates?  There will never be accountability if the leader is not accountable, visibly and emotionally. As McKee, Boyatzis, and Goleman point out in Primal Leadership, “The glue that holds people together in a team, and that commits people to an organization, is the emotions they feel.” Still think chemistry isn’t important in the locker room, Big J?

Add ONE woman to the Supreme Court? Big deal!

Cheryl offers: I’d like to say I am encouraged or even amused by the recent hoopla over the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the hoopla seems more focused on finding ways to prevent a woman from obtaining this seat than what I believe is the real topic for the Supreme Court. Over half of our nation’s population is women. In the past year, the number of working women has surpassed men in the workplace. Almost 60% of all graduating law students are women. What’s wrong with this picture? Why are we so proud we are thinking about putting a woman on the Supreme Court? And if the media and their allies can find a way to prevent it, they will. Why aren’t we asking ourselves where are the rest of the women who should be seated next to her? Canada gets it. Women serve in four of the nine Supreme Court justice positions. Our situation isn’t amusing or encouraging to me; it’s downright devastating. And by the way, this embarrassment includes the limited presence of minorities on that lofty bench (with acknowledgement to Justice Thomas.)  It reminds me of Marshall Goldsmith’s book, What Got You Here Won’t Get You There. What got us here, our current economic and political situation, is NOT where energy needs to be invested. Our future is far too vulnerable and important to risk to time bound ideas of the past.

 Sara adds: This whole political circus around Sotomayor points out (for me) the need for recognizing our biases.  First, let me offer the definition of “bias” I am using – “Bias:  noun; an inclination of outlook.”  We spend our entire lives perfecting our biases.  Even well-intentioned people are guided by lifetimes of biases.  Blind bias is the culprit here – the kind of bias that shows up when a middle aged white woman thinks she can respond in a gender and ethnic neutral way.  It can’t be done.  Ever been cut off in traffic and look to see who did it to you?  Was it a redneck or a thug or a well dressed executive in a fancy car?  And once you spotted them, was it comforting to be able to think, “That’s just like their kind!”   Dr. Sondra Theiderman nails it in Making Diversity Work, “No one is blameless when it comes to bias.  Sure, some biases are launched by the most powerful and hit their target with greater force.  But ultimately, bias is bias.”   We have two ways to blunt the impact of bias.  The first is to become mindful of our biases and manage them.  The second way – and this is what needs to happen in the United States Supreme Court – is to be inclusive.  Make sure people of variety have a seat at the table.  It seems so simple.  Simple should never be confused with easy.

Past time to retire, Jack Welch

Cheryl’s view: It seems Jack Welch should play more golf and resist the temptation of making speeches. On July 21 the Wall Street Journal reported he delivered what I’m sure he thought was “straight talk” like he thinks he did in his book, Straight from the Gut. He told a convention of HR executives women had to choose between raising a family and having the corner office. Which rock have you been hiding under Jack? Maybe he forgot that last year’s CEO of the year as elected by peer CEOs, was Anne Mulcahy, CEO of Xerox, and mother of two sons. And I supposed he also hasn’t noticed Mulcahy passed the reins to the first Afro-American woman to lead an S&P 100 company, Ursula Burns, and (Oh, gasp Jack!) also happens to have a daughter and stepson.  When Jack Welch entered the workforce and even possibly when he led General Electric, this might have been a “norm”, possibly his own stereotype at work. This is no longer the case.  Jack might also want to start reading the stats on graduating MBAs; women in 2009 will surpass men in all categories: associate, bachelor, graduate and professional. By the way, the gap between men and women has been widening since 1982, the last year men exceeded women in acquiring degrees, in college degrees and is projected to continue until 2017, which is only as far as the projection goes. So, where will the most talented, experienced, and well educated people in the company come from, the future CEOs? My money is on the next generation of women, who, by the way, believe the wisdom of his other book’s title “Control Your Own Destiny, or Someone Else Will.” Thanks for the advice, Jack, now go play golf.

Sara adds:  Jack, in the words of James Copeland, former Chairman and CEO of Deloitte & Touche worldwide in True Leaders (Bette Price and George Ritchesche),  “Don’t breath your own exhaust.”    Your pronouncement in the Journal is contemptible (a carefully chosen word from Merriam Webster’s online dictionary…  “contemptible may imply any quality provoking scorn or a low standing in any scale of value.” The italics are mine).  I believe your comments to be contemptible; having a low standing in any scale of value on a couple of levels.  First level, you single out women leaders.  Besides being transparently biased your idea begs the question, why shouldn’t ALL leaders, men and women, have the opportunity to have a life as well as incredibly successful careers?   Then there’s the next level.  It’s about BUSINESS RESULTS, Jack, not about appearances or sacrifice.  By even uttering that comment I wonder if you’ve lost focus on the prize here.   Jack, you should read  a new Harvard Business Review (HBR) article, Social Intelligence and the Biology of Leadership (Richard Boyatzis and Daniel Goleman).  It stands your antiquated version of leadership on its ear.  In the article you will read about the negative impact a leader’s stressed lifestyle has on the success of the company they lead.  The authors also provide a pathway to leadership that is healthy, balanced and produces great (get that, Jack, GREAT)  business results.  I wonder what heights GE could have climbed if YOU had been a different kind of leader.