Letting Strengths Become Risks

We continue to get ongoing requests to speak at women’s leadership forums, so here is another entry about landmines politically for women in particular…

Every strength pushed to the extreme or unbridled can become a weakness or block. Given women’s aptitude and traditional role of being nurturers in families, it makes sense they might give too much credit to others, instead of fairly and deservedly ensuring they receive credit earned and that key managers understand their contributions. Don’t let your more caring nature seduce you into overly praising others to your own demise, being too soft on people (and therefore earning the reputation as not being results-driven enough), being too nice in granting favors that put you at a disadvantage because you dislike saying “no,”  displeasing someone, or being overly apologetic.One way to get deserved credit while sharing credit and appreciation with others is to jot a quick, genuine email of positive recognition and thanks to people on a team you spearhead. Then copy the recipients’ bosses and your own. Without bragging, the fact that you are sharing credit announces the fact that you were the team lead, since you’re the one thanking folks (and of course, the team members spread positive buzz about you as a motivating, praise-oriented leader). We just get into trouble when we carry ourselves like “Mr. Cellophane,” the invisible, behind the scenes guy in the stage and movie musical, Chicago.

Another strength that can get misused or funneled into negative “buzz” can relate to women’s strengths in building close relationships, which on one hand is indeed a component of the Organizational Savvy Skills Pyramid, termed as Essential Networking. Just be sure that your relationship-building prowess is not interpreted as being at the expense of task fulfillment, leaning too much into emotional relationship-building if you’re with more of a Driver-oriented, task-focused individual that might see this as frivolous or “touchy-feely.” Also, some more self-deprecating, under-political women may restrict their relationship-building to one-on-one interactions and avoid large gatherings like the plague, missing  opportunities  for exposure to power brokers (”No thanks, I’ll just stay home and watch re-runs of Sex and the City!). Meanwhile, some “overly-political” people are tying together each other’s shoe laces to trip one another so they can get to the table to sit and schmooze with Mr. Big Wigs!

As with all the high-integrity Organizational Savvy strategies for influence, impact, and career growth, the key is BALANCE. Do you shrink your networking or fail to optimize alliance-building opportunities? And remember, important networking can occur outside large events, such as arriving early to staff meetings and NOT hopping on your phone or planner, but mixing and sharing mutual exciting projects and more importantly, asking others about what’s in their charter these days and how you might assist them.

As covered in recent blogs, many women under-estimate how their attitudes and actions about power and how their traditional sex-role socialized behavioral patterns can impact their career, influence, and team’s credibility. We’ve discussed how they may define power differently, dislike traditional power versus collaborative power, slip into language conventions that attract disparaging labels, or allow other stereotypically female habits to marginalize or plateau their careers. Today’s blog shares more friendly reminders so you don’t unwittingly step on a “corporate buzz” (aka, grapevine) mine-field.

Keeping a Low, Modest Profile

Men tend to more naturally speak about their accomplishments, to the point of sometimes bragging or taking credit in more territory-building ways–– and often they are not censured, but rewarded for doing so. As “tadpoles,” little boys are scripted to be assertive and more active in putting themselves out there. Women, on the other hand, typically receive childhood messages about modesty, avoiding too much self-promotion, and nurturing others’ image. While certainly less true in recent decades, there is still some truth to this generalization. So female executives are more apt to under-promote and to even discount focus on their own contributions (even more than males when their parents may have transmitted these same societal messages of humility).

Some women may avoid letting others see their hand print on their work, for fear of being perceived as “strutting their stuff,” being “aggressive,” or appearing too boastful. This is problematic given that Kathleen Reardon, in her book, The Secret Handshake, and Deborah Tannen, in her research and book, document that men are often promoted based upon their future potential, whereas women are more likely to be promoted based upon their past track record! This ironic trend means that women receive the very messages that muffle their efforts to engage in those very politically astute actions needed to ensure proper documentation, fair notice, and company knowledge about what they’ve accomplished. We called this Balanced Self-Promotion in our workshops on Shattering the Glass Ceiling. We offer non-crass, appropriate tactics for getting the credit and recognition you deserve without appearing pompous or overly-political. For instance, when talking about your accomplishments, instead of framing them as “results” and “achievements,” you can express excitement about what your team has “learned” that might help the company or someone else’s similar task force. This way, you’re not bragging, but just enhancing organizational learning, which is a burgeoning, valued culture-building trend in corporations.

Overdoing Femininity?

Some corporate settings frown on overly feminine norms for dress, such as long, dangling earrings or certain hairdo’s. Also, being too responsive to feelings, too “touchy-feely,” relationship-oriented, or expressive with emotions can go against the current. When discussing the negative impact of an idea, women might place too much stress on morale, fairness, or personal concern about a colleague, whereas a man might matter-of-factly note, “it’s just business.”

On the other hand, fear of being perceived as too feminine, or even misinterpreted as being coy or coquettish should not trap you into ignoring company norms. After all, many organizations do NOT require adopting more male standards, ignoring fashion, or sacrificing caring feminine traits. When Carly Fiorina was CEO of the Silicon Valley’s Hewlett Packard, for example, she nurtured many alliances by actually sending flowers and grateful messages in ways that honored her own gender, also helping her career.

A Grain of Salt

As we suggested in the overview to this blog series on Politics Pitfalls for Women, it’s great to be aware of gender-based workplace politics and differences between males and females, but let’s keep perspective. It’s counter-productive to be so worried about such dynamics that women curb or muffle the influence strengths that their gender-based tendencies actually create.

For instance, women are well served when Respecting Ego and Turf, Addressing Hidden Agendas, and using Ethical Lobbying skills that demand getting on the other’s wavelength and sensing agenda so you link your agenda. Because of their social skills and empathy, women more readily handle hyper-sensitive egos and avoid  “career-limiting moves” that many more combative, oppositional men commit. Women’s familiarity with issues of image and appearance may also better equip them to dress for success or be more aware of perceptions and how they come across.

The bottom line message is: Don’t overreact or overdo things! Don’t fall into the trap of being so self-conscious of the Women’s Politics Pitfalls in the last four blogs that you over-emphasize the role of gender mistakes and their impact. Simply starting to ponder these questions is a large part of the answer. We hope this blog series and our Organizational Savvy: Shattering the Glass Ceiling workshop might be intriguing and relevant.

Losing Through Language

Deborah Tannen, in Talking from 9 to 5, and others have documented how women use different language patterns than men. It is not that these are mistakes in and of themselves, since they are simply different conventions. The risk occurs when women do not recognize how some habits are interpreted by some men. Both men AND women misinterpret their language differences, taking them too literally and attaching attributes too automatically instead of seeing them as mere habits that may not reflect deeper character traits. As we review in Organizational Savvy: Shattering the Glass Ceiling, here are a few areas to monitor that can impact the Corporate Buzz and political impact of women:

• Self-Deprecating Patterns – Women use more tentative phrasing such as, “I might be wrong, but…,” “I haven’t totally thought this through, but…,” “sort of…,” “kind of…,” “I think… “ (instead of “I am sure, etc.”). They tend to add more qualifying language like, “I really worry that…” or “this is a very important initiative,” whereas men let their opinions stand without adding as many emphasis enhancers.
• Criticism Patterns – Men may give negative feedback and constructive criticism more directly as “straight talk,” while women soften the feedback by coupling criticism with praise, placing criticism in the context of what’s good about the idea/product/report, etc., being more indirect, or empathizing with the receiver’s feelings. Men may view such qualifying behavior as weak, insecure, too nice, or wasting time. Conversely, men’s more direct language conventions may be interpreted by women as harsh when that may not be the intent.
• Apologetic Patterns – Besides using softening, qualifying language when presenting ideas, women literally apologize more. Besides more frequently saying the actual words, “I’m sorry,” they use apologetic tones more when delegating or assigning a task, (e.g., “I hate to ask, but…”, or “I know you are swamped, but I have no one else as qualified…”, etc.). Women are more likely to say “I’m sorry” in ways that actually accept blame more than men, whose “I’m sorry” can come off more as either dismissive (e.g., “Sorry, but that’s the way it is…”) or as attributing the problem to external sources (e.g., “Sorry this  has happened to you.”).
• Asking Direction Patterns – Similar to the husband who amazes his wife by driving around lost instead of stopping to ask for directions, research shows that women are more likely to ask for more workplace directions, clarity, or suggestions on how to execute project. This is intended to ensure quality, timeliness, and respect for a boss’ specifications. But some “buzz-ards” (men and women alike) may view such requests for guidance as too frequent, signals of less competence, clues to  less confidence, and as a one-down position. Be aware of your patterns and their impact.
• Negotiation Patterns – During a  challenging negotiation or a conflict resolution meeting, women may open conversations by asking about the wishes of the other person (“Well, what is it you believe is the fair solution?” etc.), failing to see that others may view this as meaning they will too readily grant others’ desires. The woman may only use this approach to get each party’s opening positions out on the table for dialogue, but men may see a one-down posture and over-compliance.
• Small Talk & Humor Patterns – This is obviously a cliche, but men are more likely to small talk about sports and politics before “getting down to business,” while women focus on personal lives, family, or their appearance (hair, fashion, etc.). Similarly, types of humor follow these lines, too, with men using more sarcastic (aka, side-ways anger!), oppositional, and put-down teasing, while women use more self-mocking humor. The impact is to create a less powerful image and cast women as too “soft.” Many coaches urge women to get on the wavelength of men by being able to “dish it out” more. They might consider getting on men’s pages more by adapting to learn more about topics that men discuss. (And, of course, the reverse is true as well!)

My next Women’s Politics Pitfalls blog will deal with several more classic female behavioral patterns inviting potentially risky Corporate Buzz, so that you are fully aware of patterns and their outcomes in the political arena. Stay tuned!

A core career mistake women can easily correct is that of ignoring blind spots about organizational politics, and overlooking common behavioral differences between males and females that often lead to unfair corporate “buzz” and interpretations that impact credibility. Sometimes blocking, negative perceptions are the outgrowth of mere language conventions, which we’ll cover in my next blog. Other times, women may want to adjust other normal habits and make conscious decisions to alter certain behaviors in order to curb some of the labels that the “buzz-ards” might be attaching to their reputations. (Or not, but the key is to at least consciously decide rather than be “on automatic pilot.”). As I stressed in my last blog previewing Politics Pitfalls for Women, we don’t like to make generalizations because they are based partially upon sex-role stereotypes about women and men that are less true than decades ago so, where appropriate, take the following trends with a “grain of salt.”

Avoiding Politics & Power

Research suggests that women define “power” differently (power with) than men (power over), and therefore may be less likely to throw their hats into the political arena. Women may under-estimate the dynamics of corporate politics and are often less comfortable dealing with them.  This becomes a block since, like it or not, in many companies women have to work harder than men to climb the ladder, due to the cliché (but very real) “glass ceiling.” A few years back, FORTUNE Magazine published an entire section on such attitudinal differences within women executive ranks, urging a reframing of “power” to be more conducive to more female leaders embracing position power rather than suffering tremendous ambivalence.

It’s no accident that Citibank, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, UBS, Goldman Sachs and other enterprises have asked Brandon Partners to address women’s networks about Organizational Savvy, and that some leadership consulting firms specialize in helping women executives advance, such as Jupiter Consulting Group and WOMEN Unlimited (The Women’s Organization for Mentoring, Education, and Networking). When we conduct workshops around the world,we help women leaders to identify various Political Styles operating in organizations. A key difference is how the major styles define “power,” and this power definition discrepancy is true of women versus men, with men associating more comfortably with hierarchical, traditional position power “over,” and women preferring power “with” postures to achieve substance power of work well done–– believing that true power resides in the work itself. Further, the famous Machiavellian question, “would you rather be feared or loved,” is far less likely to be answered with “fear” by women. More men than women might slip into preferring the power-perverted version of the Golden Rule: “He who has the gold rules!”

If you are a woman in large organization, the lesson learned is to ask yourself whether you are being marginalized by your own ambivalence or rejection of position power. If so, consider learning about how you can adopt a hierarchical definition of power and still retain the integrity, relationships, and values you cherish. That’s true ethical Organizational Savvy or Political Savvy.

Letting Emotions Rule

An obvious stereotype is that women are more emotional. The problem is again what the “buzzards” do with their interpretations of such emotional behavior. Whereas emotional reactions and aggressive behavior are interpreted as “passion” or “positive power” in a male, women run greater risk of having more negative labels attached to similar behaviors exhibited by male counterparts. You can explore the dynamic of how reputations and perceptions start to circulate in a very incident-driven fashion by completing our Organizational Savvy Self-Assessment’s survey questions, paying special attention to the recommendations under Knowing Your Corporate Buzz. You may have freedom and latitude for emotional behavior as a woman (particularly in the financial services or securities industry where you may be in the minority), so work consciously to become aware of your emotional triggers.

We often work with both women and men to better manage any feelings of resentment or indignation they may carry about inequities or unfair labels. Here, our Assessment’s and book’s section on Savvy Attitudes can assist you in developing mental coping strategies. Take some time occasionally to systematically re-train your own counter-productive self-statements about politics, power, unfair gender-based norms, ego-oriented colleagues or bosses, or predatory behavior. Use Self-Talk skills to re-program your thought patterns (“I owe it to myself to get credit for this project” instead of thinking, “I shouldn’t brag”). Work to consciously re-frame any negative view of “politics” or “playing the game” into viewing these dynamics simply as an avenue to increased impact and influence. Sell yourself on the notion of positive power as a way to achieve great things for your enterprise. If you feel intimidated by the political influence arena, mentally visualize yourself successfully advancing on the corporate ladder without selling out. Catch yourself over-reacting if others attack or undermine you, since you don’t want to have a trigger response that people spread around because of one off-balance day! “Buzz-ards” have a way of unfairly imprisoning you in their frozen perceptions of you and labeling you with “buzz” that sticks and reinforces unfair stereotypes. Don’t help them do so!

Disclaimer and Preview

Again, I’m aware of how these cautions could ring of passe’ or outdated generalizations, but the simple fact is that we hear stories in many workshops, with nearly every coaching client that there is truth in these trends and patterns. Beyond the behavioral pitfalls covered in this blog, there are special language patterns that the next Politics Pitfalls for Women blog will address. I hope you’re finding these reminders helpful. If they seem obvious, at least they’ll reinforce of what you already may have mastered. After all, my definition of “professionals” are those who excel and are good at what they do, they constantly strive to become even better, and they know exactly what they do that makes them so good so that they can teach others. You may find these pointers a validation of how you operate, so that you can replicate it, as well as coach or mentor peers and direct reports on these political landmines. You’ll learn more blocking behaviors in my next two entries. Thanks for reading!

Next month, I’m addressing the Healthcare Businesswomen’s Association’s annual Leadership Conference on women’s political blind spots, so I’m writing several blogs on this focused niche–– ethical politics for women. To keep myself honest, I’ll first address three common resistance points about the very premise of treating women as a politically marginalized group: Are such niche programs (1) obsolete due to recent advances for women in business,  (2) passe’ because historic sex-role stereotypes are outdated, or (3) divisive by creating a greater schism between genders or generating anger about double standards or inequities?

Is the Glass Ceiling “Obsolete?”

There are still shockingly low percentages of women in the upper echelons of corporate life and alarming  compensation discrepancies. Sure, we can point to Andrea Jung at Avon, Carol Bartz at Yahoo!, Meg Whitman of e-Bay (oops, no more), and Carly Fiorino at Hewlett-Packard (oops, no more), or Hillary Clinton’s post as Secretary of State and nearly president. But the gaps are resounding, as cited by the National Council for Research on Women, with scores of conferences, articles, and forums addressing ongoing struggles. And let’s not let progress breed complacency. President Obama’s election was source of pride for all Americans, regardless of political preferences. It validates progress in equality among the races. But to believe inequities or discrimination have dissolved is naive. That’s why Jackson State University had us deliver Organizational Savvy in their Black Executives Doctoral Program, and many clients install our Organizational Savvy: Shattering the Glass Ceiling. Just yesterday, California first lady Maria Shriver presided over the annual nonpartisan Women’s Conference, the nation’s top gathering of the most influential women in corporate, political, and entertainment arenas, drawing over 15,000 attendees.

Is Organizational Savvy for Women “Passe’?”

Do specialized women’s leadership courses perpetuate out of date sex-role stereotyping? Admittedly, we’ve come a long way since traditional gender-based stereotyping prevailed (e.g., the classic Southern belle “stand by your man” norm). So we are ambivalent about making unqualified generalizations about gender preferences around power, language customs, and behavioral patterns. Many sex-role stereotypes have relaxed, especially within business. Yet, many stereotypes have a ‘hook of truth” that started somewhere before getting blown out of proportion.

There are some differences between men and women that can result in certain “corporate buzz,” perceptions, and reputations that harm women’s influence, impact, and career mobility. Sometimes, unfair labels circulate if women speak in more nurturing ways, wisely ask for directions to avoid inefficiencies, or use language that softens their stance to be less absolutist. Debra Tannen’s ground-breaking book, Talking from 9 to 5: Men and Women at Work, validates how behavioral trends do exist at work (whether or NOT you believe men are from Mars and women are from Venus!). Sadly, such gender-related habitual differences may result in labels for women like “needy,” “doesn’t take a stand,” or “pushover.” At times, women may even be discredited, marginalized, or sabotaged for the very same behaviors and traits that make men successful. Remember the “Hillary Factor” that dominated the Democratic primaries between Clinton and Obama?

Such considerations will be my focus in the next few blogs on Politics Pitfalls for Women. But as you read my blogs about the common political mistakes by women, please take them with a grain of salt. Filter the organizational savvy ideas through the lens of your own uniqueness, the cultural norms of your organization, and the biases of your managers. Ask mentors to provide insight on how the mistakes apply to your organization.

Are Programs for Women “Divisive?”

Some people––mostly men, but even some women–– fear that women’s programs engender resentment. But we find that only when marginalized groups are disempowered without hope that reactionary responses occur. Women’s networks, diversity initiatives, and leadership institutes for women can carry a message of hope and determination versus desperation, despair, and disgruntlement. A more militant, feminist posture during the 60’s and 70’s was demanded when the women’s movement was in its infancy. Today’s solutions attack the problem in more uplifting, inclusive, and non-divisive ways.

For example, WOMEN Unlimited, founded by Jean Otte, and featured on 60 Minutes, is a nationally respected leadership institute whose acronym is clever: Women’s Organization for Mentoring, Education, and Networking. The mission is to achieve greater workplace parity, but not through alienation or outrage, but by cultivating leadership excellence, empowerment, learning, and accountability. The spirit is one of collaborative, forward momentum–– joining hands with male executives who are also invited to be mentors as opposed to playing “ain’t it awful” at the water cooler.

In the same spirit, my blogs on Politics Pitfalls for Women intend to move women from whining to winning, to honor our gender differences without stereotyping or boxing, and to celebrate our progress without denying the the glass ceiling.