There’s a growing exodus from the corporate world to the private sector, and executive women are leading this charge. In fact, women are leaving corporate jobs in favor of entrepreneurship at twice the rate of men, according to Cheskin Research, a California-based strategic market research and consulting company.

There are some interesting trends for women entrepreneurs popping up in recent research. According to the Center for Women’s Business Research, the number of women-owned U.S. businesses grew at twice the rate of all firms between 1997 and 2002, and the U.S. Small Business Administration reports that women-owned businesses account for 28% of all privately-owned companies. They employ more than 9 million people and contribute $2.38 trillion in revenue to the U.S. economy.

Which raises a rather interesting question: Why are women executives leaving Corporate America? In the past, women were willing to devote their time, effort and energy to meet the corporation’s goals at the expense of their own needs. Not anymore, however. Women executives are starting their own businesses in order to gain more:

• Freedom
• Flexibility
• Recognition
• Money
• Opportunities
• Other personal benefits and rewards

51% of women business owners who worked in the private sector prior to starting their own business cite the need for more flexibility as the primary reason for leaving corporate positions, according to a study by Catalyst, a nonprofit research and advisory organization working to advance professional women.

29% pointed to restrictive glass-ceiling issues as the reason they “opted out” of Corporate America, and of those women, 44% felt their contributions weren’t recognized or appreciated. “Opted out” is the latest buzzword to describe the growing trend within corporate circles to leave corporate positions in favor of alternate career paths.

According to Catalyst President Sheila Wellington: “As women walk out the door after years of training, what really walks out is the potential that those women would have brought to Corporate America.”

Co-sponsored by the National Foundation for Women Business Owners (NAWBO), the Committee of 200, and Salomon Smith Barney, the Catalyst research revealed that:

• One third of the women surveyed felt they weren’t taken seriously by their employer or supervisor.
• 58% reported that nothing would attract them enough to return to the corporate world.
• 24% said that they could be lured back by more money
• 11% said they could be lured back by greater flexibility

The sad reality is that Corporate America isn’t doing enough to prevent women executives from walking out the door. Companies need to focus on providing flexibility, opportunities for personal growth and continuing challenges if they are to retain women they view as high-potential or who are already significant contributors. In addition, companies need to identify potential women managers early in their careers, and recruit entrepreneurs to senior level positions and corporate boards.

Expanding leadership opportunities for women requires a shift in corporate cultures as well as some “give” by women themselves if true change is to take place. Corporate cultures need to support initiatives that give women high-visibility assignments, hold managers accountable for women’s advancements, and make gender diversity a mandatory part of succession planning.

Women executives can beef up their leadership development by taking on high-profile assignments that carry an element of risk, and should consider investing in coaching services in order to refine their leadership skills – something that will help them excel whether they choose to remain in a corporate setting or venture out on their own.

In her book “Off-Ramps and On-Ramps, Sylvia Ann Hewitt wrote that current research has documented what many of us have known for a long time: women are not “men in skirts.” As a general rule, women have different values and motivations in their professional world than male colleagues.

Women typically place value on:

• Flexibility in their careers and schedules
• Reasonable demands on their time in the office and in travel
• Respect for themselves, their co-workers, colleagues and supervisors
• The ability to focus on child and elder-care issues when they arise
• A good amount of control over their work, their time and their responsibilities
• The sense of contributing to the greater good – to others and to society in a meaningful way

While men place value on:

• Power
• Responsibility
• Competition
• Recognition

The May 2007 Catalyst research report “Leaders in a Global Economy: Finding the Fit for Top Talent,” found that while both men and women most want a supportive work environment, challenging work, and a good fit between life on and off the job, the degree to which these components are valued is more significant in women.

White Male Competitive Model

Hewitt believes that the “white male competitive model” that permeates so many American companies today places a great deal of stock on continuous full time employment; being ambitious; being present in terms of “face” time (i.e. networking, extensive travel for face-to-face meetings), and money being the primary motivators for executives.

These assumptions fly in the face of what many executive women want and need. While these women have the ambition and talent to perform exceptionally well in the workplace, many are not willing to fulfill these requirements over the long haul. Why not? Because these demands mean too great a compromise in other areas of their life that hold value and meaning to women.

The Catalyst report also found that men are employed in jobs and workplaces that are more closely aligned with their values, and women are much less likely to have the work-life fit they desire. Further, the Catalyst report found that women leaders are more likely to plan on leaving their employers than men because of this lack of alignment.

Jumping Ship

Could this lack of alignment have anything to do with why so many executive women are leaving the corporate world to become, among other things, entrepreneurs? Despite the challenges that come with being a business owner, the ability to incorporate these highly valued components in order to create more balance in their work and life arenas makes the risk worth taking.

To keep women executives from leaving corporations in large numbers because they’re unable or unwilling to compromise on what they feel are highly prized life dimensions, we need to look at viable ways to stem the resignation tide. That doesn’t mean implementing hiring quotas which only creates a nasty backlash and makes for a toxic work environment.

Increasing the Number of Women Leaders

Hewitt and others who have written extensively on this subject recommend the following strategies to increase the number of women leaders in senior positions:

• Developing formal mentoring programs
• Ensuring women employees receive high-visibility assignments so they can gain credibility with their peers and direct reports
• Creating accessible informal networking opportunities while keeping in mind the off work responsibilities of many women (i.e. child or elder care)
• Allowing women executives with primary parental responsibilities more time to prove themselves worthy of a promotion.
• Taking a close look at talent management systems for signs of gender stereotyping (such as leadership characteristics, language, and the candidate selection process itself)
• Encouraging male participation in family-friendly benefits in order to alleviate further barriers to women being able to access senior positions
• Creating “on-ramps” through alumni programs for recruiting highly desirable women leaders

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.

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.

When Brenda retired from her high-level corporate job at the age of 57, she didn’t know what to do with herself. She got up each morning at 6:00 a.m., as she had done for the past 26 years, put on a suit, ate a quick breakfast, and slipped out of the house as she’d always done. Only now she had nowhere to go. For the first few weeks she wandered around aimlessly, not able to talk to anyone. Starbucks became her home-away-from-home as she spent hours each day at a table in the corner by the window watching the world go by around her.

A member of the Baby Boomer generation (women born between 1946–1964) Brenda is part of a tribe of women who were the first to enter the professional world in large numbers, and are the first to encounter the hazards surrounding retirement. Defining themselves largely through their careers, they have challenged traditional models at every stage of their lives, and are now being challenged by their own negative stereotypes about retirement.

The decision to retire means the end of a significant chapter in the lives of professional women who often hold a strong attachment to the social status and identity they derived from their careers. A recent Ohio State University study reported that professional women may have a tougher time adjusting to retirement than do women who hold jobs customarily thought of as non-professional. According to the study, large numbers of women who worked in professional occupations reported feeling a sense of loss once they retired: a loss of their corporate identities, and a feeling of reduction in their social status, as well as a loss of the daily social interaction that work provided.  

In addition to the loss of their corporate identity, many women believed that over time they were forced to give up much of their self in order to be successful in the corporate or professional work environment. In some corporate cultures, pure unbridled creativity is considered a negative, and as a result women sometimes temper their creativity in order to not be seen as lacking business acuity. Spirituality and a desire to contribute often get suppressed as well. This creates an imbalance and a loss of confidence for many women as they come to the end of their career and aren’t sure who they really are anymore. They need to reclaim other dimensions of the self they lost in order to move forward. Left unchecked, these feelings can spiral into depression, disconnectedness, and a sense of isolation.

To deal with these feelings of loss, professional women can focus on these 5 key action strategies:

1.       Grieve: For women who identify themselves primarily through their corporate or professional identity, they experience a type of “death” when they retire. They need time to mourn the loss of their corporate identity, but also the losses within the self that have gone underground to survive or succeed in the corporate world. Women need to be able to experience this loss, and their family and friends need to support them as they go through the various stages of grieving.

2.      Excavate: Once women go through the grieving process they can then begin to excavate those parts of the self that were suppressed or diminished over the years due to the demands of their career environment. This unearthing of long dormant parts of themselves can then be reintegrated, creating an opportunity for more balance.

3.      Explore: In addition to uncovering long-dormant aspects of their personalities, women need to explore new self-images and new self-identities. They need to question key truths about themselves:  Is this who I really am? Is this really true for me? How can I redefine this next stage of my life? They need to question the very idea of how they develop a new identity without their job, their title, and business contacts. It’s not an either/or proposition, and women can choose to continue their professional work even into retirement or start out in a whole new direction.

4.       Network: Loss of social interactions can be devastating for women who have relied largely on their work environment for such daily connections. It’s critical to build new networks following retirement.  Women can develop these networks through volunteering, remaining connected to the professional organizations they belonged to prior to their retirement, and through creative outlets such as book clubs, writing groups, yoga or other areas of interest where women can build new relationships.

5.      Exit: The traditional retirement no longer applies in today’s world. There are numerous alternatives available for how and when women choose to retire and what that retirement looks like.  Women can:

• Create an exit strategy that allows for gradual lessening of professional responsibilities over several years leading to retirement.
• Take a sabbatical – women can step off the fast track to rethink life and the direction they want to take.
• Become a consultant or work part-time rather than leaving their current profession completely to allow for development of other facets of self.
• Balance work and creative play.
• Combine work and volunteer opportunities. 
• Engage in a “working retirement.” More and more women are seeing employment as a lifetime commitment. It’s likely that women do and will continue to identify themselves more closely with their work roles and will want to continue to work in some capacity.