Women's Leadership

Last week, in honor of Women’s History Month, I looked at women in leadership roles and how we might encourage more women to take on such responsibilities. This week, I’d like to explore women’s leadership. Interestingly, unlike a few years ago, when scholars tended to draw a distinction between male and female leaders, today there seems to be more debate about whether men and women really do lead differently, and if so, why. This change reflects, I believe, the fact that more women hold leadership positions, providing us with more examples of women actually practicing leadership. Some scholars do continue to distinguish between male and female leadership and even to argue for the advantages of the female style. Others say that there may be differences, but those differences probably result not from genetics, but from any number of other circumstances, including how we are socialized. Some even suggest that continued gender-based expectations—even stereotypes—encourage women to exercise more feminine styles because they are more effective when they do.

Sally Helgesen, a pioneer in the field of women’s leadership, exemplifies a scholar who holds on to the distinctions between male and female leaders. Helgesen describes women’s characteristics in this way:

1) They place a high value on relationships and judge the success of their organizations based on the quality of relationships within them.
2) They prefer direct communication.
3) They are comfortable with diversity, having been outsiders themselves and knowing what kind of value fresh eyes could bring.
4) They are unwilling (and unable) to compartmentalize their lives and so draw upon personal experience to bring private sphere information and insights to their jobs.
5) They are skeptical of hierarchies and surprisingly disdainful of the perks and privileges that distinguish hierarchical leaders and establish their place in the pecking order.
6) They preferred leading from the center rather than the top and structure their organizations to reflect this.
7) They ask big-picture questions about the work they do and its value.[i]

Not only does she characterize women in these ways, but she argues that this style of leadership serves us well in today’s society and economy. Specifically, she cites three transformational trends that favor women’s leadership as she defines it:

·         The proliferation of diverse values

·         The demand for ever-more finely calibrated customization

·         The challenge of creating new structures of support

In the case of the first trend, the movements of peoples around the world—both within and between countries—continues apace, creating diverse communities in places heretofore quite homogenous. For example, immigrants used to settle primarily in cities, whereas now they spread out across the country, in rural areas and suburbs, dramatically changing the nature of those communities. They bring with them different customs, religions, and values. Moreover, in an economy where people change jobs more frequently and work is more often done in teams, people are more likely to work in much more diverse environments. Helgesen also points out that women themselves, as their participation in the workforce has increased significantly, have added to the diversity of the work experience. So, leaders of today’s organizations are characterized by a “diversity of values” and need to “harness diverse yet passionately asserted values,” a feat requiring “sensitivity, openness, and cultural flexibility.” Helgesen argues that women—who are “comfortable with diversity,” recognize the “value fresh eyes can bring,” and prioritize relationships and collaboration—are especially well-suited to lead under these circumstances.

Technology is driving the trend of ever-increasing demands for customization. Leaving behind the age of industrialization, when mass production produced large quantities of similar or identical items, we now live in a period when computer-aided design and manufacturing allows for singular or specialized items to be made cheaply (think about the Nike sneakers you can design for yourself). In addition, the availability of huge data troves permits increasingly targeted marketed. Finally, as consumers, we can benefit from the unfiltered views of other consumers; we judge companies and services in part on the basis of feedback from others like ourselves—think of the product reviews on virtually any website today or online forums where customers share experiences and advice. We enjoy a much more direct role in the design of products than we have since before industrialization. In the process, the line between the producer and the consumer has blurred. The altered relationship between producer and consumer also calls for a different approach on the part of companies. They now have to be much more responsive and connected to their customers. As Helgesen says, all organizations need “to operate as webs rather than hierarchies. In turn, web-like structures demand leaders who are skilled at inspiring people rather than directing them, and at securing buy-in rather than making top-down decisions”—leaders who are “more inclusive and intuitive.” These characteristics equate to the Helgesen’s definitions of successful female leaders.

As we all know, technology has significantly changed all of our lives. Devices that allow us to be connected 24/7 have meant that work invades home-life to a degree unknown during the industrial age. Industrialization divorced work from home-life, creating a domestic sphere that became the purview of women. Workplaces were generally divided by gender and age, while regimentation brought with it very hierarchical structures. By contrast, today, as we use methods and technologies from work in our home-lives, home looks and feels more like work. Men and women, contrary to any other period in history, use the same tools for work; likewise, children use those same tools for play and learning. The rapid pace of technological change means that we all need to be learning all the time, and often the children are teaching us. Plus, the speed and pervasiveness of technology have heightened expectations of what we can accomplish, as well as when and how quickly. Not only have mobile devices and the internet challenged distinctions between home and work, but women’s increasing presence in the workforce has made it “impossible to segregate domestic concerns from those of work.” Helgesen believes that these changes have undermined a healthy separation between work and home and she believes that women are uniquely positioned to address this problem—the challenge of support, as she calls it. Technology has amplified work-life balance issues that women had already identified, as more and more of them took on jobs outside the home. Having already wrestled with these issues, they are the natural leaders we need as we continue to press to find balance, even as men also increasingly make balance an important issue.

Because women have played such a critical role in each of these trends, they have an historic opportunity to affect the future. This opportunity places a premium on ensuring that girls understand the chance they, in turn, will have. As Helgeson explains, “As women continue to assume an ever more visible role in every sector of the public arena, this reciprocal influence will grow stronger. This, in turn, will provide girls with an unprecedented opportunity to play an active role in shaping the global environment in the years ahead.” Helgeson encourages us to make sure that girls fully understand the trends, as well as the characteristics, that serve leaders particularly well in this new context.[ii]

Whether these characteristics are peculiarly feminine or not is irrelevant, I would say, but we owe it to our girls to help them recognize their power potential and to ensure that they know how they are likely to be most effective in exercising that power. In this way, we realize our commitment not just to inspire them to lead lives of positive influence, but to prepare them to do so.

---

[i] Sally Helgesen, “7 Characteristics of Women Leaders,” “Human Resources IQ,” 1/14/2011.

[ii] The remainder of this piece comes from: Sally Helgesen, “Shaping Our Common Future: Preparing Girls for Leadership in a Changing Environment,” Seminar Series 192, Centre for Strategic Education (February 2010).

In Honor of Women's History Month: Women in Leadership?

March is Women’s History Month; the annual conference sponsored UN Commission on the Status of Women met a couple of weeks ago; and the declining number of women in headships in independent schools occupied a good part of the conversation at one of the conferences I attended recently.  In addition, I devoted my last two columns to the leadership of Washington and Lincoln.  So, for this column, I’m going to contemplate women and leadership. 

While women have certainly made strides, significant ones, in the last forty years, there is still much work to be done; indeed, there is some indication that we’re going backward in some areas.  While the percentage of women in Fortune 500 corporate board positions has continued to increase gradually to 16.1%, the percentage of women in executive officer positions actually declined slightly between 2010 and 2011 from 14.4% to 14.1%, and that despite the fact that in 2010 women made up 51.5% of management, professional, and related positions.  While women represent over 47% of law students and 45% of associates, they only represent 19.5% of law firm partners.[i]  In the 2010 Congressional elections, for the first time since 1987, the percentage of women in Congress did not increase; women’s representation in state legislatures declined nationwide by almost 80 seats.  Although women now earn the majority of both bachelor’s and advanced degrees, they constitute only 26% of full professors and 23% of college presidents; indeed, the percentage of female college presidents has remained stagnant for the last ten years.[ii]  The percentage of women heading independent schools at 32% is two percentage points lower than ten years ago while 70% of independent school professional staffs are female.  In spite of the large numbers of women on most college campuses, many of the most selective schools have experienced a decline in women’s assuming top level student leadership roles.  At Princeton, for example, in the 1980s, the decade after coeducation, the percentage of women holding the highest profile student leadership positions grew to almost 25% and then increased in the 1990s to over 31%, only to decline again in the 2000s to just slightly above 17%.  The same trend occurred in winners of the highest academic award, where female recipients actually outnumbered men in the 1990s but then dropped to a third of winners in the 2000s.   Marshall and Rhodes Scholars also witnessed a peak of female applicants and recipients in the 1990s only to have numbers reverse in the 2000s.[iii]

Women are educated; in fact, more educated than men, now; they are in the workplace – constituting 47% of American workers; they hold mid-level positions in large numbers.[iv]  There are many explanations as to why American women have not made greater progress in achieving leadership positions more proportionate to their numbers.  Being parents is one explanation; consciously choosing a less demanding track to spend more time with family is a corollary to the parent explanation; and gender discrimination remains a factor.  It also may be that women simply don’t seek out the leadership positions as actively as men.  This appears to be the case with female independent school administrators who have less confidence in their preparation for headship and are less focused in their searches for head positions; they are also less likely to seek out head jobs because of concern about the time commitments; and they are more hesitant than men to move to take on a headship, therby significantly narrowing their options.[v]

While understanding the reasons women are underrepresented in leadership positions is important, we need to focus on steps we can take to address the situation.  But wait.  Some might say, does it even matter whether women hold these leadership positions?  Especially if they are opting out themselves?  I would say emphatically, yes, it does matter.  For one, there are practical, financial reasons to have women leaders.  Companies with higher percentages of female leaders make more money: 35% higher return on equity and 34% higher total return to shareholders in the case of Fortune 500 companies with high levels of female officers.  Second, the type of leadership typically associated with women, characterized by greater collaboration, inclusivity, coalition building and embracing of diverse perspectives, has proven value in both the business and government sectors in today’s environment. According an analysis published in the Harvard Business Review, women’s “’transformative’ leadership style – making institutions more transparent, responsive, accountable and ethical – has been found to be more effective in leading modern organizations than men’s ‘transactional’ approach”[vi]  Citing lessons learned from the Great Recession, Sally Hegelsen, a leading researcher on women’s leadership, observes, “Leaders will also need to cultivate more balanced and inclusive ways of operating that draw information and strategic insight from beyond the usual sources. In order to achieve these goals, organisations will have to become better at drawing on the skills, talents, perspectives and ideas of women.”[vii] 

Finally, discrimination against women persists and discrimination is simply wrong.  Women may be exercising a choice in opting out of these leadership roles, but why are they doing that?  Often because the path to the leadership position, such as the partner track in the law or the tenure process in academia, is grueling and forces individuals to sacrifice a great deal of personal life for career advancement.  Likewise, the world of finance, particularly the Wall Street investment banks (wherever they may be located) remain male dominated hierarchies that demand a prodigious commitment extremely unfriendly to family life.  Men increasingly find these structures unappealing, but they are still more likely to sacrifice family life to career than women.

So what can we do?  The White House Project, “a nonprofit leadership development organization that invites, inspires, and equips the next generation of diverse women to lead in business and politics,” provides several recommendations, creating a critical mass of women in leadership roles being the most important.  Harvard Business School professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter first identified the importance of critical mass more than 40 years ago when she posited that “once women reached a critical mass in an organization, people would stop seeing them as women and start evaluating their work as managers.”[viii]  Her colleague, Robin J. Ely, built on Kanter’s findings to argue that for true change to occur, women need to hold senior leadership positions in significant numbers, not just fill out the ranks from entry level to mid-management.  “Until women receive representation at the top, Ely argued, sex role stereotypes persist – and not only won’t men’s perception of women change, but women’s own perception of women remains stagnant.”[ix]

While the critical mass argument makes sense, it also seems a little circular to me.  We don’t have enough women in leadership positions because we don’t have enough women in leadership positions.  One solution the White House Project offers is setting specific numerical targets and holding organizations accountable for those goals.  Norway managed markedly to increase the percentage of women board members in publicly traded companies from 11% to 40% in just three years by passing and enforcing legislation mandating this change.[x]  Rwanda provides a political example.  The Rwandan constitution stipulates that 30% of the Parliament must be female.  Currently, women hold 45 out of 80 seats and Rwanda enjoys the distinction of being the first country in the world to have a majority female parliament.[xi]  Perhaps these facts are only circumstantial, but the financial downturn had little impact on Norway and Rwanda has recovered remarkably from its horrific genocide. 

Setting targets and enforcing them clearly seems to work, but a little bit of a chicken-egg problem still exists. We need women to step into the leadership roles in order to meet the targets.  This requires more individual and personal intervention.  Ample research (as well as personal experience) indicates that women, even very qualified women, often do not perceive themselves as ready for leadership roles when men with similar or even fewer qualifications would.  This means that we need to reach out to women; we cannot assume that they will pursue an opportunity just because they are made aware of it.  In recommending that faculty actively encourage students to apply for scholarships (such as Rhodes and Marshalls) and seek leadership positions, the Princeton report observed, “All talented students deserve such affirmation, but women in particular respond to it and may indeed even wait for it before taking steps to pursue their ambitions.”[xii]  Sometimes, this reaching out can be as simple as someone in a position of responsibility asking an individual apply for the position.  Such an ask opens up a conversation that hopefully encourages the woman to begin to see herself as a leader; it’s not an exaggeration to say that such an overture can change the trajectory of her career.

In a more comprehensive approach, the research also clearly recommends mentoring for women.  Women need to be encouraged to seek out mentors, but women (and men) leaders need to step up to mentor promising women.  Not surprisingly, developing more formal and comprehensive mentoring programs stands out as one of the key recommendations from the Princeton report.   All of us can assume the role of mentor, and it’s a most rewarding one, for both the mentor and the mentee.

In this month honoring women, let’s remember Madeleine Albright’s admonition: “There is a special place in hell for women who don't help other women” and reach out to the women around us – of all ages – and help them realize their leadership potential. 

I’ve invited any faculty interested in greater leadership roles to join a conversation to that end.  What are you going to do?

---

[i] Statistical Overview of Women in the Workplace, Catalyst, Dec. 2011 (http://www.catalyst.org/publication/219/statistical-overview-of-women-in-the-workplace)

[ii] “The White House Project Report: Benchmarking Women’s Leadership” (November 2009), 10; Amanda Green, “How Are Women Faring In 2012? A Women's Rights Report Card,” “The Huffington Post,” March 6,2012

[iii] “Report of the Steering Committee on Undergraduate Women’s Leadership: Summary of Findings and Recommendations” (March 2011), 4-5

[iv] Statistical Overview of Women in the Workplace, Catalyst, Dec. 2011 (http://www.catalyst.org/publication/219/statistical-overview-of-women-in-the-workplace

[v] Pat Bassett, National Association of Independent Schools, “The Prospects for Women” powerpoint, March 1, 2012 (http://www.nais.org/about/article.cfm?ItemNumber=156311)

[vi] “The White House Project Report: Benchmarking Women’s Leadership” (November 2009), 6.

[vii] Sally Helgesen, “Shaping Our Common Future: Preparing Girls for Leadership in a Changing Envirnonment,” Seminar Series 192, Centre for Strategic Education (February 2010), 4.

[viii] “The White House Project Report: Benchmarking Women’s Leadership” (November 2009), 13.

[ix] “The White House Project Report: Benchmarking Women’s Leadership” (November 2009), 14.

[x] “The White House Project Report: Benchmarking Women’s Leadership” (November 2009), 14.

[xi]“ Revealed: The best and worst places to be a woman,” The Independent, March 4, 2012 (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/revealed-the-best-and-worst-places-to-be-a-woman-7534794.html); “Women Run the Show In a Recovering Rwanda,” The Washington Post, October 27, 2008 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/26/AR2008102602197.html)

[xii] “Report of the Steering Committee on Undergraduate Women’s Leadership: Summary of Findings and Recommendations” (March 2011), 15

Tiger Mother

I originally wrote this in February 2011.

Much as I hoped to dodge Amy Chua and her controversial book, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, I ultimately decided that in a column where I often talk about parenting, I had to tackle Chua’s philosophy.  If nothing else, Chua certainly knows how to attract press, and I imagine everyone reading this has heard or read something about Tiger Mothers and Chinese parenting in the last several weeks. 

The media, beginning with a Wall Street Journal article entitled “Why Chinese Mothers are Superior,” whose publication predated the release of the book, has focused on Chua’s more incendiary prescriptions such as:

Never

• attend a sleepover

• have a playdate

• be in a school play

• complain about not being in a school play

• watch TV or play computer games

• choose their own extracurricular activities

• get any grade less than an A

• not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama

• play any instrument other than the piano or violin

• not play the piano or violin.

The story about her calling her daughter garbage when she was disrespectful is frequently repeated. Another featured episode involves her younger daughter Lulu’s attempts to learn a difficult piano piece, “The Little White Donkey.“  Chua made Lulu keep playing, through dinner and without bathroom breaks, until midnight.  She took her dollhouse out to the car threatening to donate it to the Salvation Army.  Lulu eventually got it.  That night, she and her mother snuggled together.   Lulu played the piece beautifully at her recital, thus justifying Chua’s seemingly unreasonable demands.

However, I think Chua is trying to deliver a more complex – perhaps even conflicted -- message than simply the superiority of her parenting methods.  Indeed, the cover of the book and the frontispiece represent her story much better:

This was supposed to be a story of how Chinese parents are better at raising kids than Western ones.

But instead, it’s about a bitter clash of cultures, a fleeting taste of glory, and how I was humbled by a thirteen-year-old.

Reading that, I thought, this is a very different story – “bitter clash” and “humbled” are not words of triumph.  The book is very readable, and certainly as parents, her story draws us in, whether to quote ABC reporter Juju Chang, we are “repulsed or completely jealous.”[1]  While I felt conflicting emotions, I mostly wanted to know whether she was trying to be funny and self-deprecating or whether she was serious.  In every interview, she insists that she meant to be funny and the book is a “self-parody.” She repeatedly maintains that her book is a memoir, not a parenting how-to guide.  Read that way, the book is funny and quite touching. 

Amy Chua herself is an enormously accomplished person.  She graduated from both Harvard College and Harvard Law School where she made the Law Review.  After law school, she went to work for a Wall Street firm but hated it.  She angled for some time to get an academic job (she is married to a law school classmate who is a Yale Law School professor).  Eventually, she landed a position at Duke and then joined her husband at Yale Law School.  She wrote two books prior to Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, one on law and ethnicity in the developing world entitled World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability, a New York Times bestseller, and Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance – and Why They Fall.

But she’s not remotely arrogant about her academic and professional success; indeed, her priority is her role as a parent.  This how she describes her life:

I would . . . spend half my day writing and acting like a Yale law professor, then rush back home for my daily practice sessions with my two daughters, which in Lulu’s case always involved mutual threats, blackmail, and extortion.[2]

These practice sessions lasted hours and took place every day, even while the family was on vacation. 

In fact, it’s awe inspiring all that Chua accomplishes.  For example, in addition to her professional responsibilities, she studied all her girls’ music so she could coach them, leaving them detailed daily notes with measure by measure instructions. 

Some people have questioned whether Chua actually pushes her daughters for them or for herself.  She responds emphatically, “everything I do is unequivocally 100% for my daughters.  My main evidence is that so much of what I do with Sophia and Lulu is miserable, exhausting, and not remotely fun for me.”[3] 

Indeed, Chua determined to write her book after a particularly explosive scene at a café in Moscow, when thirteen-year-old Lulu got so angry she threw a glass on the floor in front of all the other customers.  After running across Red Square enraged and embarrassed, Chua returned to tell Lulu she could give up the violin if she wanted.  Lulu had become so intransigent that Chua was genuinely worried she was going to lose her.   Lulu had won; Chinese parenting had lost. 

So granting that in fact, Chua’s parenting methods yield mixed success and  that she really meant her book to amuse not to instruct, what can we learn from her? 

I think the most applicable lesson is her belief that her children can do anything.  In the now infamous “Little White Donkey” incident, Chua’s husband suggests that perhaps Lulu simply can’t play the difficult piece.  Chua never accepts that.  She has unswerving faith in Lulu, and she proves right.  Lulu does master the piece.  As she says, “Chinese parents demand perfect grades because they believe that their child can get them.  If their child doesn’t get them, the Chinese parent assumes it’s because the child didn’t work hard enough.”[4]  It’s not because their child isn’t innately good at something, or because the teacher is poor, or because the assessments are flawed. 

You may recall Carol Dweck’s work in which she identified “fixed” and “growth” mindsets.  In a fixed mindset, if you do something well, you attribute your success to natural talent.  In a growth mindset, you believe that being good at something depends on effort.  When those with a fixed mindset encounter a difficult task, they often give up: if you can’t do something easily, it must be because you don’t have that innate ability.  By contrast, those with a growth mindset see difficulties as a challenge to overcome.  Chua clearly has a growth mindset.  Despite all the pressure she puts on her children to achieve, she never doubts that if they apply the proper effort they will succeed. 

Chua makes an important observation:

. . . as a parent, one of the worst things you can do for your child’s self-esteem is to let them give up.  On the flip side, there’s nothing better for building confidence than learning you can do something you thought you couldn’t.[5]

Chua never expects achievement to be handed to her children; they have to work for it.  Getting to Carnegie Hall, which Sophia ultimately does, takes hours and hours and hours of practice.  Which brings us to another interesting point: you may remember Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers, where he argues that people who are hugely successful (outliers like Bill Gates and the Beatles) actually achieve that success because they devote at least 10,000 hours to whatever it is they do.  Chua expects over the top achievement and knows meeting that goal requires thousands of hours of effort.

At the point that Chua relents and lets Lulu give up the violin, Lulu had already achieved a lot – studying with one of the most revered teachers in the nation and concertmaster of a competitive orchestra.  When, after pulling back on her violin commitments, Lulu takes up tennis, Chua doesn’t pay much attention at first.  Before long, though, Lulu was winning tournaments and moving up the ranks.  Her coach observes that Lulu “has an unbelievable work ethic – I’ve never seen anyone improve so fast. . . .  She never settles for less than 110 percent.”[6]  Obviously, some of the Chinese parenting rubbed off.  Lulu was applying almost the same intensity to tennis that her mother taught her to apply to the violin. 

In the end, at least now, Sophia and Lulu seem pretty well adjusted.  They have lots of friends, and Lulu even professes appreciation for all the hours her mother made her practice the violin.  Their hard work and resulting success will give them many choices in life, and as Lulu’s tennis demonstrates, they will be able to transfer focus and commitment to other aspects of their lives. 

I don’t condone the way Chua has treated her children.  Calling them garbage and threatening to burn their stuffed animals is simply poor parenting.  The amount of yelling that occurred in that household could only have created a very tense environment, uncomfortable at best and unhealthy at worst.  In addition, contrary to what Chua originally asserts, not all children are the same.  She had to treat Lulu differently from Sophia.  Moreover, I don’t believe that all children would bear up emotionally under her parenting approach. 

That said, I think we often make excuses for our children when we shouldn’t; we don’t always give them a chance to build confidence by overcoming challenges; and some of us could do a better job of instilling the value of hard work.  There are times when, as parents, we should be making decisions for our children when we abdicate, either because we believe prematurely that they are ready to make such decisions or because we lack confidence in our own judgment. 

If Sophia and Lulu really are the reasonably well adjusted girls they appear it is because they know their mother loves them deeply; they know that the energy she expends on their behalf is for them.  Sophia and Lulu understand that she always puts them first. 

---

[1] Juju Chang interview with Amy Chua, ABC’s “Good Morning America,”

[2] Chua, 38-39

[3] Chua, 148

[4] Chua, 52

[5] Chua, 62

[6] Chua, 220