The Downtown Women's Club womensDISH blog

World Leaders: Are You Hot or Not?

I'm sure ranking heads of state by their "hotness" factor is so wrong on so many levels, esp. when one includes the Pope, but I couldn't let the  Hottest Heads of State website go by without comment.  Not only was this fun family fodder for the holidays, but it mocks (in a good way) some of what I've been on my soapbox about for the past few months - the lack of women leaders, why women need to be in politics, and how the media needs to stop focusing on the looks/clothing attire of high-profile women business and political leaders.  More on that below.

Basically the Hottest Heads of State site was the brainchild of three people who only identify themselves as J.D., Kate and Derek and who don't claim to have been anything other than subjective, totally random and irreverent and to have completely made things up.  Nevertheless, the site provoked a lot of interest in our household and here are just some of the thoughts.

First the stuff you want to know:

The Top 5:  

• Yulia Tymoshenko Prime Minister of Ukraine
• Jens Stoltenberg Prime Minister of Norway (Pictured above - Wow ... I'd vote for him to play the next James Bond!).
• Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck King of Bhutan
• Joseph Kabila President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
• Cristina Fernández de Kirchner President of Argentina

Women make up 2 of the top 5.  Unfortunately there are only 11 women on the list of 172, once again a woeful stat (6%) and indicative of the world gender gap, a number that's sadly double the percentage of women CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. As for the hotness factor, considering the lowest ranked woman was Angela Merke, the Chancellor of Germany at #109, it seems that women leaders on the whole are hotter than their male counterparts.

President Obama came in 15th. At least that's higher than our ranking of 37 in the world for healthcare systems - which, hopefully now we'll be moving up in that ranking soon. And, if Obama poses shirtless again on this latest Hawaii trip, maybe next year he'll move up in the hottie rankings.

My parents noted a bit of ageism going on in the rankings as they opined that some of the heads of state were "total hotties" when they were younger.

My son's question, based on Kim Jong-il being ranked #172 out of 172: "Does being evil make you ugly?"  My answer was "definitely on the inside," but then we did a cross check with Parade's worst dictators - and saw a bit of a correlation - so now we have the question: Does being evil make you less hot, or does being less hot make you evil?

But, as for rating the Pope 171 out of 172, I loved one of the author's disclaimers.

Finally, after a week where I've been wondering whether the media is making things culturally bad for women because they always include irrelevant descriptions of their attire/what they wear, I like that this is an equal opportunity list -- where the 161 male leaders were being judged solely on their looks.   Perhaps I've been going about this all wrong.  Rather than encouraging the media to stop talking about the appearance of female leaders, we should encourage them to talk more the looks/attire of the men!  Maybe that's what it would take before we can get back to focusing on the issues.

The Visibility Problem for Female CEOs

Just read an interesting article about the problem of visibility and female CEOs.  The Harvard Business Review blog brought up some good points, some of which counter what I thought was conventional wisdom, i.e. that women are only asked to lead companies that are already in trouble. The authors found this not to be the case.

On the other hand, they found a trend that most female CEOs come from outside the company and that stock prices dropped after announcements of new female CEOs but not after announcing a new male CEO.  While the article didn't make a direct connection to the root cause of these issues, they did allude to the fact that the media could be playing a part in it:

Nancy McKinstry, CEO of Wolters Kluwer, a Dutch publishing and information company, recalled holding a strategy meeting in which the press in Holland wrote that she wore a suit that was the same color as the KLM flight attendants'. As she told the New York Times recently, "Here we were talking about the plans for the business and that's what they focused on."

When you add that to the recent Forbes commentary about how women need to stop dressing sexy, it makes you wonder whether the subtle bias/influence of the media might have more of an impact than one would think on our perception of leadership. 

Notes from the Massachusetts Women's Conference

I popped into the Massachusetts Women's Conference last week to reconnect with some friends and help out with their Mentor Matchup program.  Below are some random notes I had jotted down during the day in case you didn't attend.

Pleasant surprise of the day: Marcus Buckingham (twitter: http://twitter.com/mwbuckingham), author of Find Your Strongest Life: What the Happiest and Most Successful Women Do Differently.  Never heard of the guy, but, then again, I never watch Oprah.  Not only was he engaging with his lovely accent and funny stories, he brought up the biggest takeaway point for the day for me:  

When children are told they are good at something and not so good at other things, they tend to pursue with enthusiasm all the things that they are good at and ignore the rest.  Grownups, on the other hand, and women especially, focus all their energy on fixing what they are not so good at (i.e., their weaknesses) and do not focus on their strengths.  This could be a major reason why women are getting less and less happy.

Hmmmm.  This certainly explains why women's magazines exist.  (For more on that, click here).  So, for 2010, how about we all have a little less focus on fixing our weaknesses and more on improving our strengths? 

Best speakers: 

• Trudy Sullivan, CEO of Talbot's.  She tells it like it is, and was not apologetic for earlier failures, or for dedicating herself to her career despite having children. (Prioritizing work is something we've been blogging about here at the WomensDISH.)
• Trish McEvoy, Founder, Trish McEvoy Cosmetics.  The story that stayed with me was how she wanted to get into makeup so she went to work in a corner drug store.  The point she made was that you can learn no matter where you are and it sounded like some of the lessons she learned at the very bottom of the ladder were helpful all the way up to the top.
• Kate White, Editor-in-Chief, Cosmopolitan Magazine, author.  Kate added a touch of glamour, yet was incredibly down to earth.  Despite my disdain for women's magazines, she's one panelist who, if I was 10 years younger, I'd be saying to myself "I want to be her!"
• Candy O'Terry, co-host, Magic 106.7's "Exceptional Women".  Fabulous moderator. She injected her own stories and really brought the panel to life.  
• Tory Johnson, CEO, Women for Hire.  Tory started off the morning with high energy and a very candid and engaging talk.  While I know Tory's story, I think it was eye-opening for the women (and a few men) in the room to hear someone openly talk about being unexpectedly fired.

Yes, you'll note that I didn't include Suze Ormond on this list.  I agree that Suze is an entertaining speaker and has her following.  But I reviewed one of her books a few years ago and her talk is pretty much verbatim.  Yes, you can learn a little "chutzpah" from her and I'm sure that was good for folks to hear.  However, when it comes to Suze's content, my take on it is if you didn't know any of the basics that she talks about before you walked into that room, then:

1. I'm worried for your ability to handle any job that has fiscal or budgetary responsibility.
2. I'm wondering if educational reform should include a basic finance 101 class as a high school requirement; and
3. Well, I suppose that would pretty much explain the state of things today.

In other words, while I think a LOT of people need to learn what she's teaching, I felt it wasn't geared to anyone at a manager level or above sitting in the audience. Personally, if I was to attend a conference for my own business purposes (as opposed to hanging out with friends and lending my expertise to the mentor matchup) I would've rather heard about the "business" of running "Suze Orman enterprises" rather than "don't run up credit card debt."

One other off-note for the day - politics:  They had two speakers representing the "political spectrum," and I don't mean to disrespect them because I applaud their being involved in a Women's Conference, but they were both "wives of". I found it odd that they didn't have US Senate candidate Martha Coakley there (for all I know it might've been a scheduling issue on the Coakley campaign part).  Anyhow, I would've rather heard from ANY female candidate who ran and won an election even if it was at a lower profile level because as you all probably know, I've been on my soapbox for the past week about how women cannot be taken seriously in business if they continue to be absent from politics.

The buzz words that I heard over and over from speakers/friends:

• Start networking
• Keep learning.
• Take action.
• Be creative.
• Be focused.
• Drop the guilt & self-doubt.

The people who probably got the most out of the conference were the participants in the Mentor Matchup program.  I'm not writing this because I personally was involved (along with some of my superstar pals who would be nearly impossible to get 20 minutes of their time in a regular setting). I'm writing this because participants got to sit down with "mentors" and ask them a particular question and get 20 minutes of undivided attention, advice and focused brainstorming. I fielded questions from job hunting,  to breaking through to management to opting back into the workforce and creating a marketing plan for 2010; the industries were IT, finance, non-profit, health care, photography and pharmaceutical.

Simply by participating in the Mentor Matchup, those individuals pretty much hit all the buzz words above.

Downtown Women's Club premium members have an opportunity to do something similar to the Mentor Matchup via our DWC+ LinkedIn Group and DWC+ Teleclasses (exclusively limited to DWC+ Paid Members).  Many of our teleclass instructors are open to hearing from participants both during and after the teleclass.  On LinkedIn, I personally respond to most questions that are posed on our LinkedIn Group provided they are "need mentoring" type questions.  And, those are also the ones that yield the most responses (read = networking opportunities) from our entire LinkedIn Group.  So, there you go - an easy way to get started making 2010 your best year yet, and you don't even have to leave your office and go to a conference.

Diane K. Danielson is the founder of the Downtown Women's Club and the author of The Downtown Women's Club Beginner's Guide to Facebook and co-author of The Savvy Gal's Guide to Online Networking (or What Would Jane Austen Do?).

The Evolving Manager Stereotype: Do More Women Managers Make For Less Stereotypes?

A study in an upcoming issue of Psychology of Women Quarterly (PWQ) looks at how men and women leaders are evaluated differently based on the the gender-typing of the industry in which they work.  The results show that expectations are higher for team performance when led by a someone of the same gender as the gender typing of that industry.  However, the expectations for the leader do not change regardless of gender in relation to the industry.

From these results, the journal implies that as more women enter leadership roles, stereotypes will fail.  The press release asserts:

as more women move into management positions within a handful of industries, these industries are becoming more gender-neutral and stereotypes of leaders as men may be changing. . . The study shows that as more women assume leadership roles in the workforce, the management stereotype will in turn evolve, resulting in changes in the relative expectations for performance by men and women in management positions. The notion that male leaders will outperform women leaders is no longer applicable in all situations since this is largely linked to the current gender typing environment at a given firm.

But is it a stretch to say that more women managers in putatively female based careers such as teaching or nursing makes those professions gender neutral?  Wouldn't gender neutrality result from the addition of male leaders in those fields? 

Perhaps the more appropriate conclusion is that as the definition of gender typed industries expand, more women will be accepted as leaders. What do you think?

How to be Queen of the Tribe

In a recent article by friend of the Downtown Women's Club, Michelle Goodman, entitled Learn from the Opposite Sex at Work, there is a fabulous quote by Jan Combopiano, vice president and chief knowledge officer of Catalyst.

“Women have to prove they're ready for leadership, whereas men just have to have potential for leadership."

Click here to read the whole article.

Yes, once again, it’s the “women have to work twice as hard” speech.  I think my Dad first gave me that talk back in 1985 (and anyone watching poor Peggy Olson in Mad Men is reliving it on a weekly basis).  Yet, in most cases, i.e. traditionally male-dominated industries, it’s still true today.  However, here at the Downtown Women’s Club, we don’t waste any time complaining that we have to work twice as hard; instead, we focus our energy into doing it. 

Not sure how to get started? Here are five tips to help flex your leadership muscles.

1. Take on leadership roles no matter how small.  This can be in your office, in a volunteer role at an industry organization, at your kid’s school (Madeleine Albright parlayed that into some higher level appointments), in your church, or your kid’s local sports leagues.  Even if it’s not a high-profile role, it is all about getting comfortable delegating, communicating and decision making.
2. Don’t wait to be asked.  True leaders don’t sit back and wait for someone to nominate them to be a leader.  Speak up at the next meeting and volunteer to take charge.
3. Find a leadership role model.  Not everyone has the same leadership style.  Find someone whose style reflects your own. This can be someone you know, or even a public figure whom you may never get to meet. 
4. Make changes.  “Leaders” create change; “managers” maintain the status quo.  This is why many managers fail when placed in a leadership role – they don’t have enough leadership training or practice.
5. Don’t be confined by the past.  Many of us grew up with a certain idea of who a leader is.  The vision that comes to mind is a Caucasian, gray-haired male politician or ceo.  Doesn’t sound like a very attractive position these days, does it?  However, our last election proved that our country was ready to include women and minorities in the role of leaders.  

In Seth Godin’s Tribes: we need you to lead us, he states that almost everyone can be a leader if they find the right tribe and get over their fear of being criticized or failing.  This is why practice is important.  So, now that I’ve given you some tips, the onus is on you to go on out and become the Queen of your own tribe.

* * * *

Bonus Tip: Want a great way to flex your leadership muscles?  Get involved with the Downtown Women's Club.  We're looking for new and future leaders to head up chapters (DWC-San Diego and DWC-Detroit need directors), or even to start your own. Click here to download our free DWC New Club Guide* and find out how you can start practicing your leadership today.

*Includes information on how you can leverage your leadership role into affiliate revenue opportunities with our new affiliate program.

Five Lessons Learned from Ted Kennedy

As I write this post the planes carrying the body of Senator Kennedy and his family have just left Hanscom Air Force Base in Bedford, Massachusetts for Arlington National Cemetery where Senator Kennedy will join his brothers John and Robert.  These last several days have seen non-stop coverage of the passing of Senator Kennedy.  Sometime in the next week the jockeying will start over who will replace the Senator but for now many of us are just remembering and appreciating him.

I have two connections to Kennedy.  First, he served as one of my senators for most of my life.  As many have said, it will be strange not to have a Kennedy representing us.  Second, through his support the Center for Women & Enterprise came into existence.  Some of you reading this have hopefully benefited from the educational and technical assistance programs offered there.

In listening to the speakers at the celebration of his life last night and at the service today I was struck by several common themes which are lessons he leaves us with.  So I share what I take away from his life and hope some of you will add the lessons your learned.

1. The Senator always started with those things he shared in common with another not what separated them.  This enabled him to build consensus resulting in the passage of an extraordinary amount of legislation and was why he was known as a consummate negotiator.
2. Following from #1, Teddy, as many called him, never let it get personal. Because of this he could forge relationships and friendships with people who might be his adversary in the Senate or other governmental bodies.
3. He fervently believed in the greatness of others, encouraging them to be confident in their abilities, to believe in themselves.  At the service, Teddy, Jr. told a touching story about going sledding for the first time after losing his leg to cancer.  How with his Father’s encouragement he eventually made it up a steep slippery hill. 
4. Teddy enjoyed life to the fullest.  There will always be tough and sorrowful times but they are easier to bear with joy in your life.
5. The Senator was a servant leader...who rose each day asking who can I serve? 

With the Senator’s passing we each face a personal crossroads.  This was best reflected in the words of his niece Caroline speaking at the celebration of his life:

"Now Teddy has become a part of history and we are the ones who will have to do all the things he would have done, for us, for each other and for our country."

And so I challenge you…who will you serve?

Susan is a business advisor and consultant.  She works with CEO's to enhance their strategic decision making through improved financial intelligence and by creating their company's advisory board.  Susan is the author of the soon to be published Advisory Board Kit, a guide to assist business owners implement their advisory board.  Susan can be reached at susan@schammond.com.

Turn public speaking stress into success

As we gear up for this fall's Downtown Women's Club teleclass series, I thought we'd revisit some highlights of last spring. Note:  All 50+ teleclasses from the past two years are available for our DWC+ premium members.  Only $49/year to join and you receive over $1500 worth of teleclasses, ebooks, member profile, and opportunities to connect online and in person.

On May 14th, Stacey Shipman (one of our DWC-Boston co-directors) gave us some great insights into how to ramp up our public speaking capabilities:

Her tips (DWC+ Premium members can download the full teleclass from our teleclass library):

1.  Figure out what you are really afraid of.

• Is it real or subconscious?
• Is it pressure you're putting on yourself?
• Are you worried people won't pay attention?
• Fear = False Evidence Appearing Real.

2.  Practice.  Just do it.  When offered an opportunity, take it.  That's the only way to improve.

3.  Ask for Feedback. 

• Podcasts are great because you can listen back. 
• If there is a video of your speech, ask to see it.

4. Connect with your audience.

• Bring your authentic self to the speech.
• Find a common bond (this is something you can do when you mix and mingle before the speech)

5. Get some support.

• Coaches, Toastmasters, Classes, Workshops

6. Some tips for on the stage:

• Remember to breathe.
• Preparation is key.
• Understand that you can't please everyone.

Stacey Shipman, M.Ed. helps women experience less stress and more success in their personal and professional lives.  You can learn more about Stacey at www.staceyshipman.com.

Join as a DWC+ Member today and download Stacey's teleclass and many others.  Click here to see our upcoming schedule.

Meddling women bad for bottom line?

Just watching friend of the Downtown Women's Club, Karen Salmansohn on Fox TV to challenge a recent study from the Journal of Financial Economics that says having women on boards hurts companies.

The study claims that:

1. Women "meddle" when they are on a board.
2. Women fire non-performing male chief executives more.
3. Women force more oversight of finances, etc.
4. However, this has lead to less profits at some companies, and could affect the performance of companies who are doing well without anyone meddling.

I haven't read the actual study, but it's probably the same reasoning as to why women CEOs on fortune 500 companies often fail quicker than males: because they only get to be CEOs at already struggling companies.  My guess is that what is going on here is the same thing.  Only companies already in a death spiral are willing to try anything like taking on women directors.

Here's some quotes from the author of the study:

Daniel Ferreira, of the London School of Economics, who compiled the research with Renee Adams of the University of Queensland, said: 'This is a complicated picture.

'Our research shows that women directors are doing their jobs very well.

'But a tough board, with more monitoring, may not always be a good thing.

'Women behave more like independent directors - they are less likely to move in the same social circles as the chief executive or play golf together and so they are going to be tougher.

'Having women on the board makes the board tougher on monitoring chief executives, but that doesn't necessarily translate into better profitability and stock market performance.

'Indeed, we see that increased monitoring can be counter-productive in well-governed companies.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1205014/Why-meddling-women-boardroom-wreck-companys-performance.html#ixzz0NnAZgFP3

I know companies are judged on profits/financial performance, but did the study look at how employees fared at these companies?  Did they get family leave? Did they get more benefits?  Could that be where the money was going?

Of course, to ask those questions might mean that I'm "meddling".  But, all I could think of is that this could be yet another Scooby-Doo ending... The old guys annoyed by those gosh darn meddling kids. 

"I would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids." - Scooby Doo Villain

Well, meddling may have hurt some companies' profits according to this one single study, but it sets the stage for better long-term governance. And, to that I just have one thing to say:

"Scooby Doobie Doooo!" - Scooby Doo

More about women bosses

The New York Times followed up its interview of Elle SVP, Carol Smith, with further discussion of her assertion that women make better managers.  In this weekend's Room for Debate, six others gave their opinions.  Here are a few highlights: 

Alice Eagly, chairman of the department of social psychology at Northwestern University.

So, are women better managers than men? In terms of their day-to-day actions, women managers should have advantages. But the answer is really not so simple because managers do well only if people accept their authority.

Leora Tanenbaum, author of “Catfight: Rivalries Among Women: From Diets to Dating, From the Boardroom to the Delivery Room.”

The best managers, female or male, are those who admit that the corporate structure favors men and who recognize their responsibility to help others follow in their footsteps.

Joanna Barsh is a director in the New York office of McKinsey and Company and co-author of “How Remarkable Women Lead,” to be published in September.\

One area where women can improve is to stop (yes) multitasking when our full attention is required. When you attempt to facilitate a phone conference while doing email, your brain switches between tasks, and you lose focus and energy.

Susan Pinker is a psychologist and columnist for the Globe and Mail in Canada. She is the author of “The Sexual Paradox,” about the roots of sex differences in the classroom and the workplace.

The readers’ complaints about difficult female managers that appear under the interview with Carol Smith make that clear: aggression is certainly more common among men, but for many reasons, the women who rise up the ranks may be on the more competitive and aggressive side — and their subordinates often feel it — especially the women who work with them.

Gary N. Powell is professor of management in the School of Business of the University of Connecticut in Storrs. He is working on the fourth edition of “Women and Men in Management” and is author of “Managing a Diverse Workforce” and editor of “Handbook of Gender and Work.”

Many people still see an incongruity between the female gender role and the leader role, which makes it harder for women to attain corner office positions and puts them in an unwelcome spotlight when they do. In 2006, after PepsiCo announced that Indra Nooyi would become its new CEO, the headline of the New York Times story was, “A Woman to Be Chief at PepsiCo.” No headline has ever announced “A Man to Be Chief at Acme Corp.”

Sharon Meers is co-author of “Getting to 50/50,” about working couples, and a former managing director at Goldman Sachs. She and her husband created the Partnership for Parity at Stanford Business School and the Dual-Career Initiative at Harvard University.

I’ve worked for many great men. But, in my experience, female managers are a special breed. We won’t know for decades if the differences are due more to nature or nurture but they are largely good — and stem from the fact that senior women are still outsiders.

Click here to read the full story.

So, as I see it, besides bringing all the collaboration, positive emotion, empathy and diligence into the workplace, women need to:

• Be accepted as authority figures
• Acknowledge that the chips are stacked against them, and help out others coming behind
• Stop multitasking
• Be as aggressive as the guys, but don't cross the line
• Learn to navigate the unwelcome spotlight
• Figure out how to accomplish all of the above while being an outsider.

And I didn't even include in this list the whole "trying to work in time off to have a baby" issue.  Wow, that's a lot to think about in addition to focusing on the bottom line, surviving a recession, etc.  Imagine what could be accomplished if both genders could put aside cultural biases and women could just focus on getting the work done.  Seems to me that a lot of energy is being wasted forcing women to overcome barriers that have no logical reason to exist ...

Are women better managers?

This is a question that Carol Smith, senior vice president and chief brand officer for the Elle Group, answered with no hesitation in the affirmative in a recent interview with the New York Times. Now, normally, I'm not a fan of making sweeping generalizations like these.  After all, we've all seen as many bad female managers as male ones.  If anyone out there ever worked for or with a Queen Bee, you know what I'm talking about.  But, Smith really had some great comments in the rest of the article, so I gave some thought to her assertion. 

My take? When women are good managers, it's because they demonstrate that they have a certain skill set.  As she described it:

"In my experience, female bosses tend to be better managers, better advisers, mentors, rational thinkers."

No doubt any manager who demonstrates those qualities, male or female, would be good.  As for the men, we probably all agree that we've seen the following: 

Men love to hear themselves talk. I’m so generalizing. I know I am. But in a couple of places I’ve worked, I would often say, “Call me 15 minutes after the meeting starts and then I’ll come,” because I will have missed all the football. I will have missed all the “what I did on the golf course.” I will miss the four jokes, and I can get into the meeting when it’s starting.

Hmmm. Been there, heard all that.  However, one thing I think Smith misses, is that this banter is how guys get comfortable with each other.  When asked in the interview why more women aren't higher level managers, Smith responds that "she doesn't know."  Well, one possibility is that by missing out or abstaining from participation in this banter, women are not socializing with some of the people in the very position to help them out.

One point she made that I could totally agree with is:

Men also, they’re definitely better on the “whatever” side. Things tend to roll off their back. We women take things very personally. We’re constantly playing things over in our head — “What did that mean when they said that?” — when they mean nothing. And I’m certainly not immune to this. So there’s a downside to women.

So, we all, including Smith, need to work at this.  But, all in all, I think Smith had some fresh insights into the subject of male and female leadership. And, I enjoyed her frankness, but most of all, her conclusion: 

... I will say that working for all women is just as bad as working for all men. I hate an office where there aren’t men and women together. I hate it, hate it, hate it. Men and women together is the best.

Agreed.  But, I would add, diversity in ethnicity, economic backgrounds, and ages would also be helpful.