Honestly, I didn't suggest women struggle with business vision - it was a female coaching friend who made this claim! And she has developed a very powerful workshop to help them with it - which is what she was explaining to me and others in our group.
The workshop involves three experiential exercises which help women explore who they are, where they are now, and where they want to be in x years. The exercises really work and by the end the participants do take away a very clear personal vision. We all thought it was a great piece of design - no surprise there. What surprised me, however, was the subsequent level of challenge in two areas, ie:
(a) Whether women really do have difficulties with business vision; and
(b) Whether the workshop was too focused on personal vision rather than vision for the business
Interestingly, it was the women in the group who were most concerened about these, whereas I (as the only male) wasn't. So why wasn't I? It emerged in the debate that one of my unconscious assumptions about business vision is that, for senior leaders, the business vision is simply a product of their personal vision - so challenge (b) is irrelevant. And I also carry an assumption that thinking challenge (b) is relevant is an unhelpful belief for any leader seeking to create a compelling business vision - so immediately rebutting challenge (a)!
My assumption may be driven more by my character style than my gender. But I do know that one of the big gender differences is that men tend to self-actualise through work, so it is not surprising that their personal and business visions should converge. Women typically see work as only one of several options for self-actualisation, so aligning personal and business visions requires a more deliberate step.
Do any other men (or women) want to comment?!
Showing posts with label 1.3 Gender. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1.3 Gender. Show all posts
Are women inherently better leaders?
At a development day for coaches, I had a revealing experience of the power of a deep and unconscious group assumption to hold the staus quo, even when the conscious focus of the debate in the group is on how to change that status quo.
The group was discussing what particular support women needed to get to senior leadership positions (honestly it is not me that keeps bringing this subject up - I just get caught up in it!). Underlying the detailed discussion I became aware that there was an underlying group assumption (or belief) which informed the whole discussion, which was that because women are inherently more emotionally intelligent, "women would inherently be better at leadership than men, if only they were allowed to lead".
I wouldn't argue against the idea that women generally have higher emotional intelligence, but in the linkage to gender, the point seemd to be lost that emotional intelligence is what we want in all our leaders - hence why much leadership development and coaching aimed at men focuses so heavily on it. What was also glossed over is the complementary attribute we also want - the drive to lead. In my experience this is for many potential leaders (male and female) the hardest step - coming to terms with the fact that leadership is ultimately not given to you, it is something you have to step forward to take on. Arguably this is a more male trait, but linking it to gender is again not that helpful - we need the strength, courage and desire to lead in all our leaders.
What was really interesting though, was noticing my own internal reactions to the debate. I see myself as a male who is relatively in touch with my feminine side, with pretty good emotional intelligence. I was also a senior leader in a male dominated partnership which was explicitly seeking to change that male domination. So I wanted to be a real supporter of this group and helpful in the debate. But actually I felt completely excluded - because I was a man and didn't buy into the group assumption! And most interesting of all is that feeling excluded (and quite hurt by this) brought out my defence mechanisms - so that I felt like attacking the group's ideas and the validity of their perspective as women. The gender war was on! And it struck me that this is what might also happen inside businesses - senior male allies being "turned away" rather than "secured", all this happening completely unconsciously.
So, once again, I was brought to the conclusion that making real progress on increasing the presence of women at senior levels of business will come from focusing not on which gender is better, but on recognising both male and female qualities are essential in good leaders... and ANY individual wanting to be a good leader needs to develop an ability to use both appropriately. Gender may simply suggest which will instinctively be easiest and which will take most self-development effort.
And change will only come from building alliances between men with emotional intelligence and women with the drive to lead!
The group was discussing what particular support women needed to get to senior leadership positions (honestly it is not me that keeps bringing this subject up - I just get caught up in it!). Underlying the detailed discussion I became aware that there was an underlying group assumption (or belief) which informed the whole discussion, which was that because women are inherently more emotionally intelligent, "women would inherently be better at leadership than men, if only they were allowed to lead".
I wouldn't argue against the idea that women generally have higher emotional intelligence, but in the linkage to gender, the point seemd to be lost that emotional intelligence is what we want in all our leaders - hence why much leadership development and coaching aimed at men focuses so heavily on it. What was also glossed over is the complementary attribute we also want - the drive to lead. In my experience this is for many potential leaders (male and female) the hardest step - coming to terms with the fact that leadership is ultimately not given to you, it is something you have to step forward to take on. Arguably this is a more male trait, but linking it to gender is again not that helpful - we need the strength, courage and desire to lead in all our leaders.
What was really interesting though, was noticing my own internal reactions to the debate. I see myself as a male who is relatively in touch with my feminine side, with pretty good emotional intelligence. I was also a senior leader in a male dominated partnership which was explicitly seeking to change that male domination. So I wanted to be a real supporter of this group and helpful in the debate. But actually I felt completely excluded - because I was a man and didn't buy into the group assumption! And most interesting of all is that feeling excluded (and quite hurt by this) brought out my defence mechanisms - so that I felt like attacking the group's ideas and the validity of their perspective as women. The gender war was on! And it struck me that this is what might also happen inside businesses - senior male allies being "turned away" rather than "secured", all this happening completely unconsciously.
So, once again, I was brought to the conclusion that making real progress on increasing the presence of women at senior levels of business will come from focusing not on which gender is better, but on recognising both male and female qualities are essential in good leaders... and ANY individual wanting to be a good leader needs to develop an ability to use both appropriately. Gender may simply suggest which will instinctively be easiest and which will take most self-development effort.
And change will only come from building alliances between men with emotional intelligence and women with the drive to lead!
Do men prefer a long hours culture?
The same great conversation referred to in my last post also generated an interesting example of how the same behaviour can be given completely different interpretations. And, of course, it is our interpretation which determines our reaction to it.
The group discussing challenges faced by high potential women also observed that men seemed to prefer a long hours culture because in recent years they were, if anything, making this even more "the norm". The conclusion reached was that, whatever they said in public, men didn't really enjoy domestic life and were glad to have an excuse to escape it.
Which struck me as having some truth in it, connecting with the belief that men "aren't naturally well equipped" to do it and and that they "tend not to be very good at it" - the latter something that most men have been told at some time! But my female colleague helped me see an even deeper psychological perspective which made me wonder if this was the whole story - or even the real story.
Here's the thought. What if at some deep and very unconscious level, men were seriously threatened by the growing power of women, worried what they would have nothing left if women dominated both in the domestic role and at work. Actually, to me that fear isn't so deep or unconscious! What could men do? Well one thing they could do is use the same biological advantage they have in sports to work "faster, harder, longer". That's a game stacked in their favour (as always talking in huge gender generalisations here). So maybe the long hours culture is not running away from the domestic role, it is running away from the competitive threat posed by women.
Another interesting one! It doesn't provide a magic solution to the long hours culture, but it does make it obvious that if this is actually male defensive behaviour, attacking harder isn't a good strategy for reducing it!
The group discussing challenges faced by high potential women also observed that men seemed to prefer a long hours culture because in recent years they were, if anything, making this even more "the norm". The conclusion reached was that, whatever they said in public, men didn't really enjoy domestic life and were glad to have an excuse to escape it.
Which struck me as having some truth in it, connecting with the belief that men "aren't naturally well equipped" to do it and and that they "tend not to be very good at it" - the latter something that most men have been told at some time! But my female colleague helped me see an even deeper psychological perspective which made me wonder if this was the whole story - or even the real story.
Here's the thought. What if at some deep and very unconscious level, men were seriously threatened by the growing power of women, worried what they would have nothing left if women dominated both in the domestic role and at work. Actually, to me that fear isn't so deep or unconscious! What could men do? Well one thing they could do is use the same biological advantage they have in sports to work "faster, harder, longer". That's a game stacked in their favour (as always talking in huge gender generalisations here). So maybe the long hours culture is not running away from the domestic role, it is running away from the competitive threat posed by women.
Another interesting one! It doesn't provide a magic solution to the long hours culture, but it does make it obvious that if this is actually male defensive behaviour, attacking harder isn't a good strategy for reducing it!
"Women have babies... why won't THEY admit it?"
Another great conversation today with another female coaching colleague about what's fast becoming a favourite topic, ie gender.
She was telling me about an all-female coach group she'd recently attended which ended up discussing the challenges for high potential females in business with (male dominated) partnership structures. Because of my background she knew I would be interested ... and also that I wouldn't be able to stop myself reacting to what she was about to say!
One specific point the group focused on was the expectation that anyone with partner potential should have made it by their mid to late thirties and if they hadn't done it by then they probably never would. This they felt was a real problem for women who wanted children, who would either be caught by maternity leave(s) just in the crucial few years before going for partnership, or would have to risk leaving babies until they had made it - possibly leaving it too late. The point was made that it would be more reasonable to expect women to (in general) make partner later than men, to allow for them to choose to have babies when they wanted. "Why won't they admit it?" they said. "Are they trying to ignore the biological fact that women have babies."
Two immediate reactions burst from me! The first was that, as a man, even with my political incorrectness, I would never have dared say something like that! Followed, as a consequence of that thought, by the question: Who did the group mean by "they"? Because in the current climate of debate, nobody in senior management (male or female) is going to suggest that women might expect to make partner later. So the only reasonable "they" are the high potential women themselves.
Interesting ... and to me another example of a basic principle of systemic change, which is that the only way you can change the system is by changing what you do in the system. Or as Ghandi put it: "Be the change you want to see."
She was telling me about an all-female coach group she'd recently attended which ended up discussing the challenges for high potential females in business with (male dominated) partnership structures. Because of my background she knew I would be interested ... and also that I wouldn't be able to stop myself reacting to what she was about to say!
One specific point the group focused on was the expectation that anyone with partner potential should have made it by their mid to late thirties and if they hadn't done it by then they probably never would. This they felt was a real problem for women who wanted children, who would either be caught by maternity leave(s) just in the crucial few years before going for partnership, or would have to risk leaving babies until they had made it - possibly leaving it too late. The point was made that it would be more reasonable to expect women to (in general) make partner later than men, to allow for them to choose to have babies when they wanted. "Why won't they admit it?" they said. "Are they trying to ignore the biological fact that women have babies."
Two immediate reactions burst from me! The first was that, as a man, even with my political incorrectness, I would never have dared say something like that! Followed, as a consequence of that thought, by the question: Who did the group mean by "they"? Because in the current climate of debate, nobody in senior management (male or female) is going to suggest that women might expect to make partner later. So the only reasonable "they" are the high potential women themselves.
Interesting ... and to me another example of a basic principle of systemic change, which is that the only way you can change the system is by changing what you do in the system. Or as Ghandi put it: "Be the change you want to see."
Women and power: "That's just about sex!"
I recently had a very quirky conversation with a female colleague coach about power and gender.
She was talking about "The 48 laws of power" by Roberte Greene and Joost Elffers and made the point that men would understand these laws instinctively, whereas women have to learn them. To illustrate, she asked "What do you guess the first law is?" (You might like to try and guess it yourself before reading on.)
I didn't get it right, but when she told me it, I had to agree I did instinctively understand it! (The first law is "Never outshine the master".) And I also agreed that, although there are plenty of men who (like me) fall into this trap as the accidental result of trying too hard to impress rather than outshine the master, most men would probably recognise the rule - at least in hindsight!
Then I thought about it some more and suggested "But surely most women also get this ... you only have to watch how careful most women are about this when around an alpha male in a social setting". "Oh" she said "that's not about power, that's just about sex!"
Which shut me up completely. Until now, when I've thought of the perfect come back question I should have asked her then, which is: "What exactly do you think male power games are ultimately about, if not about sex?!"
She was talking about "The 48 laws of power" by Roberte Greene and Joost Elffers and made the point that men would understand these laws instinctively, whereas women have to learn them. To illustrate, she asked "What do you guess the first law is?" (You might like to try and guess it yourself before reading on.)
I didn't get it right, but when she told me it, I had to agree I did instinctively understand it! (The first law is "Never outshine the master".) And I also agreed that, although there are plenty of men who (like me) fall into this trap as the accidental result of trying too hard to impress rather than outshine the master, most men would probably recognise the rule - at least in hindsight!
Then I thought about it some more and suggested "But surely most women also get this ... you only have to watch how careful most women are about this when around an alpha male in a social setting". "Oh" she said "that's not about power, that's just about sex!"
Which shut me up completely. Until now, when I've thought of the perfect come back question I should have asked her then, which is: "What exactly do you think male power games are ultimately about, if not about sex?!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)