• Tweet

  • Mail

  • Share

  • Save

  • Get PDF

  • Purchase Copies

  • Print

Photography: Courtesy of Janus van den Eijnden.

Artwork: Janet Echelman, 1.26 Sculpture Project at the Amsterdam Light Festival, December 7, 2012–January twenty, 2013, Spectra Fiber, loftier-tenacity polyester cobweb, and lighting, 230′ ten 63′ x xxx′, Amstel River, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Many CEOs who brand gender diversity a priority—past setting aspirational goals for the proportion of women in leadership roles, insisting on diverse slates of candidates for senior positions, and developing mentoring and training programs—are frustrated. They and their companies spend fourth dimension, money, and good intentions on efforts to build a more than robust pipeline of upwardly mobile women, and so non much happens.

The problem with these leaders' approaches is that they don't address the oftentimes fragile process of coming to see oneself, and to be seen by others, every bit a leader. Becoming a leader involves much more than being put in a leadership role, acquiring new skills, and adapting one's style to the requirements of that role. Information technology involves a central identity shift. Organizations inadvertently undermine this process when they propose women to proactively seek leadership roles without as well addressing policies and practices that communicate a mismatch between how women are seen and the qualities and experiences people tend to associate with leaders.

A significant torso of research (run across "Farther Reading") shows that for women, the subtle gender bias that persists in organizations and in gild disrupts the learning cycle at the eye of becoming a leader. This inquiry as well points to some steps that companies tin can have in gild to rectify the situation. It'south not enough to identify and instill the "right" skills and competencies as if in a social vacuum. The context must support a woman's motivation to pb and also increase the likelihood that others will recognize and encourage her efforts—even when she doesn't expect or conduct like the current generation of senior executives.

"Who Volition Lead and Who Volition Follow? A Social Process of Leadership Identity Structure in Organizations," past D. Scott DeRue and Susan J. Ashford (Academy of Management Review, Oct 2010)

"Women and Leadership: Defining the Challenges," by Robin J. Ely and Deborah L. Rhode (Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice, Harvard Business Press, 2010)

"Impossible Selves: Image Strategies and Identity Threat in Professional Women's Career Transitions," by Herminia Ibarra and Jenifer Petriglieri (Insead working newspaper, 2007)

"Negotiating in the Shadows of Organizations: Gender, Negotiation, and Modify," by Deborah M. Kolb (Ohio State Periodical on Dispute Resolution, 2013)

"Taking Gender into Account: Theory and Design for Women'south Leadership Development Programs," past Robin J. Ely, Herminia Ibarra, and Deborah Kolb (Academy of Management Learning & Education, September 2011)

The solutions to the pipeline problem are very different from what companies currently employ. Traditional loftier-potential, mentoring, and leadership education programs are necessary but not sufficient. Our inquiry, teaching, and consulting reveal three boosted deportment companies can have to improve the chances that women will proceeds a sense of themselves as leaders, be recognized as such, and ultimately succeed. (This article expands on our paper "Taking Gender into Business relationship: Theory and Blueprint for Women'southward Leadership Development Programs," Academy of Management Learning & Education, September 2011.)

Becoming a Leader

People get leaders by internalizing a leadership identity and developing a sense of purpose. Internalizing a sense of oneself as a leader is an iterative process. A person asserts leadership by taking purposeful activeness—such as convening a meeting to revive a dormant project. Others affirm or resist the activity, thus encouraging or discouraging subsequent assertions. These interactions inform the person'southward sense of cocky as a leader and communicate how others view his or her fitness for the part.

As a person's leadership capabilities grow and opportunities to demonstrate them aggrandize, loftier-profile, challenging assignments and other organizational endorsements go more likely. Such affidavit gives the person the fortitude to footstep exterior a comfort zone and experiment with unfamiliar behaviors and new ways of exercising leadership. An absence of affirmation, however, diminishes self-confidence and discourages him or her from seeking developmental opportunities or experimenting. Leadership identity, which begins as a tentative, peripheral attribute of the self, somewhen withers away, along with opportunities to grow through new assignments and real achievements. Over time, an aspiring leader acquires a reputation equally having—or not having—loftier potential.

The story of an investment broker we'll call Amanda is illustrative. Amanda's career stalled when she was in her thirties. Her problem, she was told, was that she lacked "presence" with clients (who were more often than not older men) and was not sufficiently outspoken in meetings. Her career prospects looked dour. But both her reputation and her conviction grew when she was assigned to work with two clients whose CFOs happened to be women. These women appreciated Amanda's smarts and the skillful mode she handled their needs and concerns. Each in her own way started taking the initiative to raise Amanda's profile. One demanded that she be present at all key meetings, and the other refused to speak to anyone but Amanda when she called—deportment that enhanced Amanda's credibility within her firm. "In our industry," Amanda explains, "having the key client relationship is everything." Her peers and supervisors began to see her not just as a competent project managing director but every bit a trusted client adviser—an important prerequisite for promotion. These relationships, both internal and external, gave Amanda the confidence heave she needed to generate ideas and express them forthrightly, whether to colleagues or to clients. Her supervisors happily concluded that Amanda had finally shed her "meek and mild-mannered" sometime cocky and "stepped upward" to leadership.

This article also appears in:

Effective leaders develop a sense of purpose by pursuing goals that align with their personal values and advance the commonage good. This allows them to expect beyond the condition quo to what is possible and gives them a compelling reason to take action despite personal fears and insecurities. Such leaders are seen as accurate and trustworthy because they are willing to take risks in the service of shared goals. Past connecting others to a larger purpose, they inspire commitment, boost resolve, and help colleagues find deeper meaning in their work.

Integrating leadership into one's core identity is peculiarly challenging for women, who must establish credibility in a culture that is securely conflicted about whether, when, and how they should exercise authorization. Practices that equate leadership with behaviors considered more mutual in men suggest that women are simply not cut out to be leaders. Furthermore, the human tendency to gravitate to people like oneself leads powerful men to sponsor and advocate for other men when leadership opportunities ascend. As Amanda'due south story illustrates, women's leadership potential sometimes shows in less conventional ways—being responsive to clients' needs, for example, rather than boldly asserting a point of view—and sometimes it takes powerful women to recognize that potential. Just powerful women are scarce.

Despite a lack of discriminatory intent, subtle, "second-generation" forms of workplace gender bias can obstruct the leadership identity development of a visitor's entire population of women. (Run into the sidebar "What Is 2nd-Generation Gender Bias?") The resulting underrepresentation of women in superlative positions reinforces entrenched beliefs, prompts and supports men's bids for leadership, and thus maintains the status quo.

Research has moved away from a focus on the deliberate exclusion of women and toward investigating "second-generation" forms of gender bias as the primary crusade of women'south persistent underrepresentation in leadership roles. This bias erects powerful only subtle and frequently invisible barriers for women that arise from cultural assumptions and organizational structures, practices, and patterns of interaction that inadvertently benefit men while putting women at a disadvantage. Among them are:

A paucity of part models for women.

Aspiring leaders need role models whose styles and behaviors they can experiment with and evaluate co-ordinate to their own standards and others' reactions. Fewer female leaders means fewer office models and tin suggest to immature would-be leaders that being a woman is a liability—thus discouraging them from viewing senior women every bit credible sources of advice and support.

Gendered career paths and gendered piece of work.

Many entrenched organizational structures and piece of work practices were designed to fit men's lives and situations at a time when women made up but a very small portion of the workforce. For one example, formal rotations in sales or operations have traditionally been a key step on the path to senior leadership, and men are more than likely than women to have held such jobs. Yet requirements like these may exist outdated when it comes to the kinds of feel that best prepare a person to atomic number 82. For some other, career- enhancing international posts often assume a "abaft spouse" who has no career and can easily motility—a family state of affairs much more common for men than for women. How work is valued may similarly give men an advantage: Research indicates that organizations tend to ignore or undervalue behind-the-scenes work (building a team, fugitive a crisis), which women are more than likely to do, while rewarding heroic work, which is near oft done by men. These practices were non designed to be discriminatory, just their cumulative effect disadvantages women. A roughshod bike ensues: Men appear to be best suited to leadership roles, and this perception propels more of them to seek and achieve such positions, thus reinforcing the notion that they are simply better leaders.

Women's lack of access to networks and sponsors.

Informal networks are a precious resource for would-be leaders, nonetheless differences in men's and women'due south organizational roles and career prospects, forth with their proclivity to interact with others of the aforementioned gender, event in weaker networks for women. They cite as a major barrier to advancement their lack of access to influential colleagues. Moreover, the connections women practice accept tend to be less efficacious: Men'south networks provide more breezy help than women's practise, and men are more likely to have mentors who assistance them get promoted. Meanwhile, men in positions of power tend to direct developmental opportunities to junior men, whom they view as more than likely than women to succeed.

Double binds.

In most cultures masculinity and leadership are closely linked: The ideal leader, similar the ideal man, is decisive, assertive, and independent. In contrast, women are expected to be dainty, caretaking, and unselfish. The mismatch between conventionally feminine qualities and the qualities idea necessary for leadership puts female leaders in a double bind. Numerous studies have shown that women who excel in traditionally male domains are viewed as competent but less likable than their male counterparts. Behaviors that advise self-confidence or assertiveness in men frequently appear arrogant or abrasive in women. Meanwhile, women in positions of authorisation who enact a conventionally feminine style may be liked but are not respected. They are deemed also emotional to make tough decisions and too soft to exist strong leaders.

The three actions we propose to support women's admission to leadership positions are (1) educate women and men about 2d-generation gender bias, (2) create condom "identity workspaces" to support transitions to bigger roles, and (three) anchor women's development efforts in a sense of leadership purpose rather than in how women are perceived. These actions will give women insight into themselves and their organizations, enabling them to more effectively chart a course to leadership.

Brainwash Everyone About Second-Generation Gender Bias

For women.

More than than 25 years agone the social psychologist Faye Crosby stumbled on a surprising phenomenon: Near women are unaware of having personally been victims of gender discrimination and deny information technology fifty-fifty when it is objectively truthful and they meet that women in general feel it.

Many women have worked hard to accept gender out of the equation—to simply be recognized for their skills and talents. Moreover, the existence of gender bias in organizational policies and practices may suggest that they accept no power to determine their ain success. When asked what might exist holding women back in their organizations, they say:

"It's nothing overt. I just feel less of a connection, either positive or negative, with the guys I piece of work with. So sometimes I seem to have difficulty getting traction for my ideas."

"I look around and meet that my male colleagues have P&L responsibility and most of us are in staff roles. I was advised to brand the move to a staff role after the nascency of my 2nd child. It would be easier, I was told. Only now I recognize that there is no path back to the line."

"My business firm has the very best intentions when it comes to women. Just information technology seems every fourth dimension a leadership role opens up, women are non on the slate. The claim is fabricated that they simply can't discover women with the correct skill set and feel."

These statements confute the notion that gender bias is absent from these women's work lives. Second-generation bias does non require an intent to exclude; nor does it necessarily produce direct, immediate harm to whatever private. Rather, it creates a context—alike to "something in the water"—in which women fail to thrive or reach their full potential. Feeling less connected to i's male person colleagues, being advised to have a staff office to suit family unit, finding oneself excluded from consideration for key positions—all these situations reflect work structures and practices that put women at a disadvantage.

In Practise

  • "Now Is Our Time"

    Leadership Interview

    • Adi Ignatius

    An interview with Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg.

    • Save

Without an agreement of second-generation bias, people are left with stereotypes to explain why women as a group have failed to achieve parity with men: If they can't reach the top, it is considering they "don't enquire," are "too overnice," or simply "opt out." These messages tell women who take managed to succeed that they are exceptions and women who take experienced setbacks that it is their own fault for failing to exist sufficiently ambitious or committed to the chore.

We find that when women recognize the subtle and pervasive furnishings of 2d-generation bias, they feel empowered, not victimized, because they can accept action to counter those furnishings. They can put themselves forward for leadership roles when they are qualified but accept been overlooked. They can seek out sponsors and others to back up and develop them in those roles. They can negotiate for work arrangements that fit both their lives and their organizations' performance requirements. Such agreement makes it easier for women to "lean in."

For women and men.

Second-generation bias is embedded in stereotypes and organizational practices that can be hard to observe, but when people are made enlightened of it, they see possibilities for alter. In our work with leadership development programs, we focus on a "pocket-size wins" approach to change. In one manufacturing visitor, a chore force learned that leaders tended to hire and promote people, mainly men, whose backgrounds and careers resembled their own. They had good reasons for this behavior: Experienced engineers were hard to detect, and fourth dimension constraints pressured leaders to fill roles rapidly. Merely after recognizing some of the hidden costs of this exercise—high turnover, difficulty attracting women to the company, and a lack of variety to friction match that of customers—the company began to experiment with modest wins. For case, some executives made a delivery to review the chore criteria for leadership roles. One male leader said, "Nosotros write the job descriptions—the list of capabilities—for our platonic candidates. We know that the men will nominate themselves even if they don't meet all the requirements; the women would concord back. Now we look for the capabilities that are needed in the part, non some unrealistic ideal. We take hired more women in these roles, and our quality has not suffered in the least."

In another instance, participants in a leadership development programme noticed that men seemed to be given more strategic roles, whereas women were assigned more operational ones, signaling that they had lower potential. The participants proposed that the company provide articulate criteria for developmental assignments, be transparent about how loftier potential was evaluated, and requite direction as to what experiences best increased a person's potential. Those actions put more women in leadership roles.

Create Safe "Identity Workspaces"

In the upper tiers of organizations, women become increasingly scarce, which heightens the visibility and scrutiny of those nearly the top, who may go run a risk-balky and overly focused on details and lose their sense of purpose. (In general, people are less apt to endeavor out unfamiliar behaviors or roles if they feel threatened.) Thus a safety space for learning, experimentation, and community is disquisitional in leadership development programs for women.

Consider performance feedback, which is necessary for growth and advancement just total of trip wires for women. In many organizations 360-degree feedback is a basic tool for deepening self-knowledge and increasing awareness of one's bear upon on others—skills that are role and parcel of leadership development. But gender stereotypes may color evaluators' perceptions, subjecting women to double binds and double standards. Inquiry has handsomely demonstrated that accomplished, high-potential women who are evaluated as competent managers often fail the likability test, whereas competence and likability tend to go mitt in manus for similarly achieved men. We see this miracle in our own enquiry and practice. Supervisors routinely requite high-performing women some version of the message "You need to trim your precipitous elbows." Likewise, we find that participants in women's leadership evolution programs often receive high ratings on task-related dimensions, such every bit "exceeds goals," "acts decisively in the face up of doubt," and "is not afraid to make decisions that may be unpopular," only low ratings on relational ones, such as "takes others' viewpoints into account" and "uses feedback to acquire from her mistakes." We as well often encounter women whose performance feedback seems contradictory: Some are told they demand to "be tougher and hold people answerable" simply likewise to "not set expectations so high," to "say no more frequently" but also to "be more visible," to "exist more than decisive" but too to "be more collaborative."

Creating a safe setting—a coaching human relationship, a women'due south leadership program, a back up grouping of peers—in which women can interpret these letters is disquisitional to their leadership identity evolution. Companies should encourage them to build communities in which similarly positioned women tin discuss their feedback, compare notes, and emotionally back up one some other's learning. Identifying common experiences increases women's willingness to talk openly, have risks, and be vulnerable without fearing that others will misunderstand or judge them. These connections are particularly important when women are discussing sensitive topics such equally gender bias or reflecting on their personal leadership challenges, which can easily threaten identity and prompt them to resist any critical feedback they may receive. When they are grounded in candid assessments of the cultural, organizational, and individual factors shaping them, women tin can construct coherent narratives nearly who they are and who they want to become.

The Importance of Leadership Purpose

In a recent interview with members of Hillary Clinton'due south printing corps, a veteran reporter noted, "The story is never what she says, every bit much as we desire it to exist. The story is always how she looked when she said it." Clinton says she doesn't fight it anymore; she only focuses on getting the chore washed.

How women are perceived—how they clothes, how they talk, their "executive presence," their capacity to "fill a room," and their leadership style—has been the focus of many efforts to get more of them to the pinnacle. Phonation coaches, image consultants, public-speaking instructors, and branding experts find the demand for their services growing. The premise is that women have not been socialized to compete successfully in the world of men, and then they must be taught the skills and styles their male counterparts larn as a matter of course.

Related

  • Save

To manage the competence-likability trade-off—the seeming option between being respected and being liked—women are taught to downplay femininity, or to soften a difficult-charging style, or to try to strike a perfect residue between the two. But the time and free energy spent on managing these perceptions can ultimately be cocky-defeating. Overinvestment in one'south image diminishes the emotional and motivational resources available for larger purposes. People who focus on how others perceive them are less articulate nigh their goals, less open to learning from failure, and less capable of self-regulation.

Anchoring in purpose enables women to redirect their attending toward shared goals and to consider who they need to exist and what they need to larn in club to reach those goals. Instead of defining themselves in relation to gender stereotypes—whether rejecting stereotypically masculine approaches because they feel inauthentic or rejecting stereotypically feminine ones for fear that they convey incompetence—female person leaders can focus on behaving in ways that accelerate the purposes for which they stand up.

Focusing on purpose can also atomic number 82 women to take up activities that are critical to their success, such as networking. Connections rarely come to them every bit a thing of course, and so they accept to be proactive in developing ties; but we also find that many women avoid networking considering they see information technology every bit inauthentic—as developing relationships that are merely transactional and feel likewise instrumental—or considering information technology brings to heed activities (the proverbial golf game, for case) in which they have no interest or for which they have no fourth dimension, given their responsibilities across piece of work. Yet when they run into information technology as a means to a larger purpose, such as developing new business to accelerate their vision for the company, they are more comfortable engaging in it. Learning how to be an constructive leader is similar learning any complex skill: It rarely comes naturally and usually takes a lot of practice. Successful transitions into senior management roles involve shedding previously effective professional identities and developing new, more fitting ones. Yet people often experience clashing about leaving the comfort of roles in which they have excelled, because doing and so means moving toward an uncertain effect.

Second-generation gender bias can make these transitions more challenging for women, and focusing exclusively on acquiring new skills isn't sufficient; the learning must be accompanied by a growing sense of identity as a leader. That's why greater agreement of second-generation bias, safety spaces for leadership identity development, and encouraging women to anchor in their leadership purpose will become better results than the paths most organizations currently pursue.

A version of this commodity appeared in the September 2013 issue of Harvard Business Review.