In a recent article, I wrote about the myth of the C-suite and why so few women are reaching the uppermost echelons within companies and organizations. Despite years of progress by women in the workforce – they now occupy more than 40% of all managerial positions in the U.S. – within the C-suite they are far scarcer. When you look at Fortune 500 companies, the most highly paid executives with titles such as chairman, chief executive officer, president and COO, only 6% are women. More importantly, only 2% of the CEOs are women, and only 15% of the seats on the boards of directors are held by women.

One of the obstacles along the career path to the C-suite has to do with leadership style. Women often struggle to develop an effective and appropriate leadership style, one that balances the “communal” qualities people would rather see in women with the “mover and shaker” qualities people think leaders need to be successful. Women are not “men in skirts,” and there is the possibility that women who behave like men will be penalized. It’s not easy for a woman to strike that authentic balance as a leader.

I thought about this today after coaching a client who is frustrated with the double standard she feels exists between how men and women lead. She is a collaborator by nature, a trait that is normally seen in a positive light, but in the leadership arena consensus often equates to an inability to take a stand. Wishy-washy. Indecisive. If she acts in an autocratic manner she is seen as “behaving like a man” and her approval rating takes a hit. This double bind wreaks havoc on her ability to lead, and she struggles to strike a balance that is both effective and authentic.  

Women leaders regularly find themselves in this Catch 22 situation. If they exhibit traits typically associated with males, they will likely be resented and considered “too aggressive” for the position. Studies that have tracked reactions to men and women displaying different types of dominant behavior have consistently shown that this behavior is more damaging to women than it is to men. Assertive behavior can reduce a woman’s chances of getting a job or advancing in her career. Interestingly, studies bear out that men can communicate in either a warm or a dominant manner without experiencing a penalty either way.

Think for a moment about the word “leadership.” Now with that thought in mind, add the picture of a man and what comes to light? Do the words ambitious, decisive, commanding, demanding and aloof (among others) trip off the tongue? Do we envision such traits as collaborative, social, communal, nurturing and compassionate when we think about women and leadership? Do we begin to get uncomfortable if we flip flop these traits, or when men and women behave in a style that clashes with our assumptions?

Research and statistics have pointed to women leaders as more socially oriented and collaborative while male counterparts are seen as task oriented and dominating, and while I don’t doubt the validity of these findings, I do question their origin. How much of this has to do with biology and how much is due to sociological factors?  How much of this is true nature and predisposition, and how much is conditioning and gender stereotyping?

Talking about gender stereotypes and leadership success is multifaceted and complex – it’s way more than just a set of numbers and statistics. Yet it’s crucial that these conversations take place in order to break down and change longstanding beliefs about gender roles and dynamics. Breaking down gender stereotypes requires that we examine our presumptions. Often that involves painful excavation and removal of the false beliefs, judgments and restrictions we hold around what constitutes male/female behavior. Until these are brought to the surface and acknowledged, true change cannot take place.

By observing, understanding and transforming past patterns that dictate today’s beliefs about leadership we can take steps to create a new paradigm; a new set of beliefs that aren’t based on defined gender roles or qualities, but on what factors constitute the best in leadership. 

That’s what my client is trying to do. She’s not ready or willing to throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to leadership style. For her, a collaborative approach is a strategic and systematic one that creates levels of accountability and alignment that drive results. She refuses to jettison that trait in favor of appearing more decisive.  She’s also learning to become more comfortable with the ambiguity even as she works to change it.

Collectively, we need a long lens to go back in our history to connect the dots of what it meant to be a man or woman through the generations. Then we can take what qualities are effective and necessary to good leadership and put a new face on them. Not a male face. Not a female face. But the face of a leader.

Are you a woman executive whose career is beginning to wear like a tight-fitting pair of heels? If so, this call is for you! There is still time to register for my free one-hour teleclass: “Your Turning Point: The First Step Toward Your Extraordinary Life Waiting for You” that’s scheduled for January 12, 2010 at 12:00 p.m. ET/9:00 a.m. PT. The only thing you need to commit to is 60 minutes of your time, and I’d love to have you be a part of the conversation and the journey.  You can learn more by following this link: http://www.evelynkalinosky.com/yourturningpoint.

A recent survey of midlife women conducted by More magazine revealed some interesting (and not surprising) results. When asked to define the most important aspects of a great job, in addition to a good salary and benefits, midlife women told More they need:

• Meaning – to feel that they’re contributing positively     98%
• A job in a growing field with a bright future                          89%
• A high level of freedom or control                                            87%
• A job that’s appropriate for a woman over 40                     79%
• A chance to work a flexible schedule                                      73%

I know these elements are certainly essential to me. One of the main reasons I took the leap to become an entrepreneur in midlife was to fulfill many of these same outcomes, although my career path is a bit different than the norm, since most of it has been based on doing work that enabled me to feel I was contributing positively, and that generally took priority over salary and benefits. As I’ve gotten older I’ve decided that I need more of a merging between money and meaning, and have learned that it’s possible, even necessary, to have them both as front line goals.

When I say the results of the survey aren’t surprising, it’s because this is what I consistently here from my clients and other midlife women I talk with when it comes to what they want in a career at this stage of their lives. In our younger years it’s understandable that the focus might be more on the financial aspects of getting ahead. Climbing the corporate ladder or navigating any organization requires focus and tenacity in order to reach the pinnacle of success. There’s no shame in that. These are honorable goals. I think what happens, though, is as we age into our 40s and 50s our goals shift. They become more expansive. They become about more than just ourselves; they become more about how we relate to the world around us, and how we can take what we’ve learned, what we’ve built over the years, and create a lasting legacy. It’s that “search for significance” I tend to write so much about.

Many women reach a crossroads in their 40s and early 50s where career alone is not enough to sustain them. They’re professional life is starting to feel like a tight pair of shoes. It’s no longer fitting them and the life they want to lead. They are searching for something more. For some that means travelling a totally new path; for others it means finding a way to reconnect with their career in a way that is more meaningful and more heart-centered.  The reasons may vary, but the need is often the same: to merge money and meaning in a way that enables women to achieve a more sacred kind of success.

It can be a painful place to be, and there are often painful questions that need to be asked such as: When did I let my life become not my own? When did I lose touch with myself? How can I be so financially successful and feel so personally bankrupt? While it might feel like that old song “Is This All There Is?” I know – having been there – that it isn’t. There is so much more. There’s a life that has you bounding out of bed with enthusiasm; a life where you control what you do and how you do it; a life of balance, power, passion, and purpose. 

There’s an authentic you showing up for that life; a you who uses your one-of-a-kind voice, abilities, and talents; a you who hasn’t checked one single part of yourself at the door; a you who has explored your core and has tapped into your unlimited wealth. And there’s your own personal vision for your sacred success: the kind of success that makes a difference in the lives of others; the kind of success that merges money and meaning; the kind of success that creates purposeful work and a lasting legacy. 

One of my favorite quotes is by George Eliot who wrote: “It’s never too late to be who you might have been.” Ladies, who do you want to be on this next journey? 

***Because this is such a driving force in the lives of so many midlife business women, I’ve put together a free one-hour teleclass:“Your Turning Point: The First Step Toward Your Extraordinary Life Waiting for You” that’s scheduled for January 12, 2010 at 12:00 p.m. ET/9:00 a.m. PT. The only thing you need to commit to is 60 minutes of your time, and I’d love to have you be a part of the conversation and the journey. If this feels like something you’d like to explore, you can learn more by following this link: http://www.evelynkalinosky.com/programs-and-services/1238.

Despite years of progress by women in the workforce – they now occupy more than 40% of all managerial positions in the U. S. – within the C-suite they are by far more scarce. When you look at Fortune 500 companies, the most highly paid executives with titles such as chairman, chief executive officer, president and COO, only 6% are women. More importantly, only 2% of the CEOs are women, and only 15% of the seats on the boards of directors are held by women.

Back in 1986 the Wall Street Journal coined the phrase “glass ceiling.” In an article by Carol Hymowitz and Timothy Schellhardt wrote: “Even those few women who rose steadily through the ranks eventually crashed into an invisible barrier. The executive suite seemed within their grasp, but they just couldn’t break through the glass ceiling.”
 
Admittedly, “glass ceiling” is a catchy phrase, but is it really the reason why women don’t make it into the C-suite? Or is it more likely due to the sum of many obstacles that appear along the trajectory of a woman’s career that is the real reason?

While there was a time when the barriers were absolute, times have changed and the glass ceiling metaphor no longer holds the ring of truth. We have female CEOs, university presidents, governors, etc. In addition, the metaphor implies that women and men have equal access to entry and mid-level positions, when in point of fact they don’t. The glass ceiling doesn’t incorporate the complexity and variety of challenges women can face in their leadership journey.

The truth is that women aren’t turned away just as they reach the pinnacle of their career. They disappear in numerous ways leading up to that stage. The path to the C-suite is not a simple or direct path, but one that requires persistence, awareness of progress and careful analysis of the obstacles that lie ahead. For women who aspire to top leadership positions the routes exist, but like a labyrinth they are full of twists and turns – some that are expected and others that come without warning or direction.

Remnants of Prejudice

It’s well established that men as a whole still have the benefit of faster promotions and higher wages. Here in the U. S. women employed full time earned 81 cents for every dollar earned by men. Is this a result of discrimination? One of the most comprehensive studies conducted by the
U. S. Government Accountability Office found that even after adjusting wages for all of the ways men and women are different (i.e. gender and other characteristics), women’s wages remained lower than men’s.

Resistance to Women’s Leadership

What’s behind this discrimination? Basically, it’s a set of widely held conscious and unconscious associations about women, men and leaders. Women are associated with traits that embody compassion and a sense of community such as being affectionate, kind and sympathetic. Men, on the other hand, are associated with qualities that convey control and assertion, such as being aggressive, ambitious, self confident and forceful. These latter traits are seen by most people as effective leadership.

As a result, women leaders find themselves in a Catch 22 situation. If they exhibit traits typically associated with males, they will likely be resented and considered “too aggressive” for the position. Studies that have tracked reactions to men and women displaying different types of dominant behavior have consistently shown that this behavior is more damaging to women than it is to men.

Leadership Style

Women often struggle to develop an effective and appropriate leadership style, one that balances the “communal” qualities people would rather see in women with the “mover and shaker” qualities people think leaders need to be successful. Women are not “men in skirts,” and there is the possibility that women who behave like men will be penalized. It’s not easy for a woman to strike that authentic balance as a leader.

Family Life Demands

Women continue to be the ones who interrupt their careers, work part-time or take more days off to raise children. As a result, they have fewer years of job experience and fewer hours of employment per year, which slows their progress and reduces their income. While men are increasingly sharing housework and child rearing, the bulk of domestic work still lands on women’s plates. In the U. S. married women devote an average of 19 hours a week to housework while married men contributed 11 hours.

Networking

One of the biggest problems associated with balancing work and family that so many women must perform is that it leaves little time for socializing with colleagues and building professional networks. The “social capital” that accumulates is essential. Fast track managers spend more time and effort socializing and interacting with clients, and social capital may be even more necessary to advancement than how well an individual does their job.

Given such a multifaceted problem, what can be done to overcome these obstacles and provide more women with the opportunity to reach the executive suite? Stay tuned for my next blog post where we’ll explore a number of effective approaches that tackle each obstacle at its root.