Home > Update > December 2006

WOMEN AT WORK

by Lari Fanlund

Executive Education’s Women’s Executive Leadership Summit explored how women can succeed and how employers can benefit.

He Said, She Said

Jeffery Tobias Halter remembers having what he calls his “white man’s epiphany.” As he explained it, “The light bulb went off. Suddenly I realized that I was viewing things from my perspective as a straight, white male.”

Being able to view things from a variety of perspectives is essential for senior management to successfully manage a rapidly changing workforce, according to Halter. He cited U.S. Department of Labor statistics that as of January 1, 2005, show more than 75 percent of new hires are women and minorities.

Halter, who has worked for more than 20 years in sales management and leadership development for Fortune 500 companies, is also the author of the book “Selling to Men, Selling to Women.”

“It’s going to be a war for talent,” Halter predicted, citing estimates that as of January 1, 2008, the equivalent of 10,000 workers will retire and leave the workforce every day. “And the best and brightest don’t want to work for Fortune 500 companies,” he said. “They’re becoming entrepreneurs. It’s the Perfect Storm for employers.”

For their own self-interest, companies must find ways to make the most of the leadership capabilities of women workers. Halter sees a barrier to that happening due to gender bias in the perception of women’s leadership­—and not just by men.

Halter explored in depth the findings in a study by Catalyst, a leading research and advisory organization that works with businesses to expand opportunities for women at work. Released in February 2006, the study polled almost 300 executives—evenly divided between men and women, on how they viewed 10 leadership behaviors, by gender:

• Team building
• Mentoring
• Consulting
• Networking
• Supporting
• Rewarding
• Problem Solving
• Inspiring
• Influencing Upward
• Delegating

Both the men and women polled gave the edge to men in two categories—delegating and influencing upward. Halter postulated that many women find it hard to delegate because for many doing it all—becoming a “superwoman”—was what got them to their present posts. Once in leadership positions, where delegation is essential, it can be hard for them to trust subordinates to properly manage tasks. For others, delegating can be seen as telling other people what to do, which may conflict with what they see as society’s mandate for women to be “nice.”

When it comes to influencing upward, Halter also believes women may be somewhat naïve in how they focus their time. “It’s not just results that matter. Women tend to think decisions are made in ‘The Big Meeting.’ They aren’t. Decisions are made in conversations before the big meeting. The meeting is just to get agreement from all the players.” Halter’s solution is for women to concentrate on obtaining coaching and mentoring and to make skillful use of networks they build up throughout their careers.

The men and women surveyed didn’t agree on everything. For example, while men polled ranked their gender as better at problem solving, women said women were better problem solvers. Halter believes the difference is caused by different ways in which men and women typically reach decisions. “Research has shown that women tend to make better decisions because they are more likely to take in and process more data. That can take time and be perceived by men as being indecisive.” According to Halter, women leaders need to learn how to frame their decision-making process to avoid this perception.

Halter believes smart companies will invest in helping women learn how to delegate and increase their skills in other areas where their backgrounds may not have prepared them to assume leadership roles. Men, he said, will benefit from training that allows them to appreciate how approaches to leadership different from their own can be valuable. Both men and women, in his view, benefit by developing tools to build strategic partnerships to allow all kinds of people to make contributions in the workplace.

In short, for Halter the bottom line is that finding a way to maximize women’s contributions isn’t just the right thing for companies to do—it’s increasingly essential if firms wish to successfully compete.

Cultural Perspectives

It was 1981, and Melanie Holmes was looking for a job—frankly, any job. She had applied to several Milwaukee companies without success. She had few traditional credentials—no college degree, and sparse work experience. She decided her best path into the workforce was to go to an employment agency with hopes the firm would place her in a temporary job where she could show her worth over time.

The first placement firm she visited saw no use for her skill set. So, she went to the Milwaukee office of Manpower Inc., where they saw enough potential to hire her as an assistant to the secretary of the firm’s own CEO. Over the years, Holmes worked her way up the company’s corporate ladder. Today she is vice president for corporate affairs—North America for Manpower Inc., an entity with more then 457,000 employees in 1,100 offices nationwide. Holmes shared her story and gave a joint presentation on cultural perspectives on women in the workforce with Jonas Prising, president—North America at Manpower Inc.

But hasn’t it been decades since the start of the women’s rights movement? Are there still barriers to women’s workplace progress? Holmes and Prizing expressed no doubt that barriers still exist—in the United States and worldwide.

These barriers can be personal, cultural, economic or political, said Prising, who shared findings by the World Economic Forum ranking 58 countries on how well their economy employs the talents of women. The countries were measured on five parameters: job opportunities, pay, political representation, health care and education. Sweden topped the list; the United States was 17th.

Prising said the way the findings are grouped reveals how governmental policies and cultural norms affect women’s workforce participation. Nordic countries like Sweden have among the highest participation rate of women in the workforce—more than 75 percent. Their fertility rates, between 1.8 and 2.0, are among the highest in Europe. Government-paid parental leave (for men and women) is 16 months and women are encouraged to work by government-sponsored child-care options and parental insurance.

“How does it feel to live in a country with this kind of system?” asked Prising, a native of Sweden. “Taxes are high. There are virtually no ‘homemakers’ because the assumption is that except for those with very small children, everyone will be in the workforce. Sweden is at one extreme of the pendulum.”

At the other end of the spectrum, Prising said, is Southeast Asia, where female workplace participation is low, generally below 50 percent, and those who do work often hold informal or underground jobs. Fertility rates in Southeast Asian countries are low – as low as 1.2 in some countries. North America ranks in the middle. About 70 percent of the total workforce is women. Fertility rate are high at 2.0 — nearly at the “replacement” rate. The gender wage gap is wider than in Europe.

Fertility rates should be of concern to countries and their businesses, said Prising, because over time, fertility rates at less than replacement mean major labor shortages. Unless immigration can fill unmet labor needs, at the current rate he predicted the United States will face a major labor shortage by 2050.

What can organizations do to make it more likely they can retain and advance women? Holmes pointed to several key factors, citing research by Sharmila Rudrappa, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Texas, who earned her PhD from UW-Madison in 2001.

Those factors are:

• Supportive managers
• Support networks outside the workplace
• Flexible work hours
• Commitment to diversity and culture
• Access to challenging assignments
• Access to influential decision makers
• Clearly defined requirements for advancement
• Clearly defined career paths

On a personal level, Holmes attributed her success at Manpower to several factors. One was luck —having a CEO who recognized her potential and gave her assignments where she proved her abilities. She joined a company with a tradition of promoting from within and having a place for women managers. She credited her own ability to take advantage of opportunities, as well.

Holmes said career paths for women are clearer today than in the past. Still, some things have remained constant. “A key factor that women who aspire to rise in an organization need to recognize is the value of access to influential decision makers,” Holmes said. “When I first joined Manpower, the way to get face time with the CEO was to work on Saturdays, when he was known to roam the halls and interact with whoever was around. I made sure I worked on Saturdays.”

Lari Fanlund is editor of UPDATE.