The Athena CORE10 Leadership Reimagined ÂŠ
The Athena Center for Leadership Studies Barnard College 3009 Broadway New York, NY 10027-6598 212.854.1264 athenacenter.barnard.edu
ÂŠ 2013 Barnard College all rights reserved
Table of Contents About the Athena Center Introduction
PROGRESS, OPPORTUNITY, AND RECOGNITION 6 BARRIERS 9 SOLUTIONS 13
VISION 15 AMBITION 18 COURAGE 23 ENTREPRENEURIAL SPIRIT 27 RESILIENCE 31 COMMUNICATION 34 LEVERAGE 39 COLLABORATION 43 NEGOTIATION 46 ADVOCACY 51
“We seek a future awash with new ideas and lit by the energy of all people.” — Marie C. Wilson, author, Closing the Leadership Gap: Add Women, Change Everything
About The Athena Center for Leadership Studies Established at Barnard College, a pioneering force in undergraduate women’s education since 1889, the Athena Center for Leadership Studies is dedicated to the advancement of women’s leadership around the world. Our programs • create and promote innovative approaches to leadership development; • educate and develop new generations of women leaders;
professional development, and public education programs both in New York and across the globe. 301 Barnard Hall 3009 Broadway New York, NY 10027-6598 212.854.1264 firstname.lastname@example.org athenacenter.barnard.edu
• challenge—and change—cultural stereotypes of leaders; and • foster research and public dialogue that expands our understanding of leadership. Why are we committed to creating a bold new vision of leadership? It is simple. When more women are leaders, we change society’s understanding of what leaders look like, how they operate, and how they respond to social, political, and economic needs. When more women are leaders—particularly when they are powerful, visionary, and strategic—then communities and organizations are more innovative, productive, and successful. When more women are leaders, we raise the aspirations of women and girls around the world.
Athena is building a world where leadership is constantly reimagined to reflect the needs of women and society—where women obtaining and exercising power is both expected and commonplace.
Launched as a special initiative of Barnard president Debora Spar, the Athena Center welcomed Kathryn Kolbert, the Constance Hess Williams ’66 Director, as its founding director in Fall 2009. Since then, the Center’s able team has provided education, research,
The Athena CORE10 is a critical new initiative by the Athena Center for Leadership Studies at Barnard College—a fresh look at the attributes that today’s leaders need to achieve, maintain, and maximize the impact of their positions. For most of history, there has been the assumption that leaders are men. Most standard lists of essential leadership tools have focused on the traits—assertiveness, linear reasoning, hierarchical command—that are typically associated with male leadership.1 Most leadership development efforts have been directed toward a male audience. Similarly, organizations and institutions are typically founded on the male model of leadership and, perhaps unconsciously, have been designed around the needs and leadership styles of men. All too often, this creates a “chilly climate” for women leaders within these institutions.2 In recent years, as more women have achieved leadership positions and there is greater recognition that a diversified leadership structure is both more effective and more profitable, three complementary themes have begun to emerge: • Women bring a new and vital range of skills to the task of leading in an increasingly diverse, global society, from active listening to consensus building to self-reflection to reasoned risk taking. The evidence is strong and growing: when the leadership table includes people with these traits, the world does better. 4
• If women are to expand their much-needed leadership presence, they need guidance tailored to their particular histories, circumstances, and styles. This guidance recognizes and celebrates women’s specific strengths while also preparing them to adopt time-tested strategies—persuasive communication, confident self-promotion, strategic cultivation of sponsors, and more. • The solution to advancing women’s leadership lies not only in encouraging and developing women as leaders but also in being able to reshape institutions and society so that they encourage women’s success and include women at the decisionmaking table. What the modern world requires is a more holistic assessment of what good leadership looks like and an expansive, cross-pollinated approach to leadership development. The CORE10 is the Athena Center’s response to this challenge of how to advance women’s leadership. It presents and analyzes five overarching attributes that effective leaders deploy with confidence and ease—Vision, Ambition, Courage, Entrepreneurial Spirit, and Resilience—and five critical skills that effective leaders develop—Communication, Leverage, Collaboration, Negotiation, and Advocacy. There are many “leadership lists” already in circulation. Unfortunately, most reflect the skills and priorities of a leadership pool that remains dominantly male and white.3 The CORE10 takes those lists and envisions them through a different lens: How can the tools of
leadership be recast to better reflect what the world’s diverse women are contributing? How can each tool be framed to help more women step up to make those contributions? We chose these attributes and skills based on the best thinking of leading experts and on insights gleaned from Barnard College’s 125-year history of promoting women’s progress. For each one, we provide a brief overview of how it contributes to effective leadership and an analysis of how—and how well—women can use it. We give examples of how dynamic women have incorporated these competencies into their leadership and offer specific tips on how women can adopt and further develop them. We offer, in short, a reimagined road map for women aspiring to leadership positions. Will absorbing the lessons of the CORE10 guarantee access to power? Of course not. Leadership development is a lifelong process—a process that requires constant learning, flexibility, and reassessment of individual goals, circumstances, and opportunities. Will adopting the CORE10 dispense with all the factors that have historically slowed women’s advancement? Will they remove centuries of stereotyping or address the unremitting
challenges of balancing work with primary caregiving responsibilities? Of course not. These factors run deep; it will take continued, proactive, individual, and collective efforts to change them. Will drawing on the CORE10 help women at all stages of leadership set a better course for achieving their goals? Yes, that is our hope. The CORE10 attributes and skills are associated with impressive leadership trajectories and solid achievement in a broad range of areas. The “If your actions more fully women create a legacy that embrace them, the more likely their inspires others to dream path to success. more, learn more, do
more and become more,
As bold new then you are an women leaders excellent leader.” continue deploying these critical — Dolly Parton, entertainer and competencies— philanthropist as they continue sharpening their skills, advancing their positions, and sharing their contributions—they will inevitably change both the face of leadership and the terms of its practice. They will create the more integrated, innovative diversity of leadership that our modern world requires and deserves.
Background Progress, Opportunity, and Recognition
Women leaders’ advancement in the last half-century has been remarkable in many ways. Women can be found among the heads of state and the presidencies of major universities; they are counted among cabinet officers and Nobel Prize winners. Women are creating waves in the formal economy, both as executives who lead companies to greater profits and as entrepreneurs who start their own businesses.4 Women are breaking into C-suites and boardrooms that have, until recently, been exclusively male bastions of power and influence.5 Women constitute nearly half the workforce and hold over 51 percent of management positions.6 Women are accruing the educational credentials—earning the majority of BA, MA, and PhD degrees and more than half of all law and medical degrees—that should ostensibly propel them to the top, across a range of professions.7 In addition to these promising statistics—and possibly even more important to women’s ongoing progress—is the growing evidence and recognition that women’s increased presence in positions of influence adds value. Experts across a range of fields have begun documenting and broadcasting the fact that better gender-diversified enterprises reach higher performance levels and are achieving new and important results in the following areas: • Social Justice and Peace-building Efforts: A striking number of women-led efforts have achieved ends that had eluded all previous attempts, from the organizing 6
“Ladies, the curtain is up and you’re on.”
activities in Northern Ireland that culminated Mikki Taylor, editor-at-large, in the 1998 Belfast Essence magazine Agreement to the demonstrations in Liberia that brought years of bloodcurdling civil war to an end.8 Since 1979, fifteen women have received Nobel Peace Prizes for their successful efforts to secure peace, improve women’s safety, and expand human rights9 • Academia: In recent years, women have taken on the leadership of major US academic institutions. As of this writing, three of the eight Ivy League schools (Brown, Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania) are headed by women, as are a range of extraordinary schools from Vassar to Harvey Mudd to University of Virginia to Barnard, and these women are being credited with bringing significant new revenues and prestige to their institutions.10 Twenty-six percent of all American college presidents were women in 2011, a 5 percent increase from 2010 and an all-time high.11 In addition, women are a growing percentage of the tenure-track faculty. As of 2012, over 65 percent of the women in academia are either tenured or in tenure-track positions.12 • Business: A Harvard Business Review study evaluating 215 Fortune 500 companies over the past 28 years found that organizations that proactively recruit women executives perform better than peer institutions with respect to profits as a percentage of revenue, assets, and stockholder equity.13 Studies show that firms
run by women CEOs “have lower leverage [risk in market], less volatile earnings, and a higher chance of survival than firms run by male CEOs.”14 This translates into smarter business practices and greater profitability. Similarly, Catalyst has found “a 26% difference in return on invested capital (ROIC) between the topquartile companies (with 19 to 44 percent women board representation) and bottom quartile companies with zero woman directors.”15 • Politics: From Angela Merkel to Hillary Clinton to Ellen Johnson Sirleaf to Nancy Pelosi, women in appointed and elected positions across the globe are achieving measurable progress in key areas related to economic growth, national security, and health. Studies have shown that women leaders in the United States propose more legislation in the critical fields of health care and education16 and female members of Congress bring back more federal dollars to their districts than their male counterparts.17 In addition, women in elected office are more likely to spend a greater percentage of their time on constituent services than men18 and are more willing to work across party lines, particularly to advance the representation of women’s issues in public policy.19 • Arts and Media: As women have assumed larger roles as directors, producers, news pundits, and newscasters, they have begun creating a more balanced and realistic narrative about the role and potential of women and girls in today’s world.20 Although
there is still much ground for women to cover, the percentage of women who are television news directors reached 30 percent in 2013, an all-time high,21 and more and more women are directing films, particularly documentaries.22 Major female media leaders—from Oprah Winfrey to Arianna Huffington—are parlaying their bold vision and innovative approach into reshaping the media landscape.23 Along with the growing recognition that bringing in more women leaders creates broad benefits, there has been a growth of new interest in figuring out why this is so. The explanations for these broad benefits fall into four general categories: • Organizations that proactively recruit women leaders are likely to be equally forward thinking in other ways. Harvard Business School professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter reasons that companies that go out of their way to hire women are also likely to be better “tuned in to the surrounding environment,” better able to “see new opportunities,” and more capable of “work[ing] out differences across big swaths of the world.”24 • Casting a wider recruitment net ensures the enlistment of the best available minds and skills. As one report by the National Council for Research on Women put it: “Don’t we need to draw on the talents of our entire population—51 percent of which are women— to rebuild our financial system and bring stability
to our national and global economies?”25 • Having more women at the table ensures a greater variety of voices in the decision-making process. Representation matters. The greater the variety of voices that are actually speaking at the table, the broader the interests that are represented, heard, and incorporated. This ultimately improves the deliberative decision-making process.26 • Today’s enterprises need the particular skills and talents that women tend to bring to the table. In today’s economy, “women are more likely than men to demonstrate the leadership traits that have positive impacts on corporate performance, such as building collaborative teams, clearly defining expectations, and rewarding people.”27 Additionally, women are a growing sector of the economy and women’s buying power has significantly increased over the last fifty years.28 Thus, women’s knowledge and intuition of what appeals to other women is vitally important. Perhaps one of the strongest arguments for the particular value of women’s leadership traits is presented in the New York Times best-selling book The Athena Doctrine, written by marketing expert and Athena Center for Leadership Studies Fellow John Gerzema and coauthor Michael D’Antonio. To produce the Doctrine, the authors surveyed over 64,000 men and women of all ages across 13 different countries.29 They asked these individuals 7
to label a set of traits as being either “masculine” or “feminine” and then asked them to rate those traits in terms of their overall usefulness for global and local leadership. The results are striking. The characteristics that were labeled as “traditionally feminine” (e.g., flexibility, social responsibility, sensitivity to others, ability to multitask) were almost universally judged to be more useful for—and more in sync with—the needs of today’s society. “Everywhere, people are frustrated by a world long dominated by [traditional] codes of male thinking and behavior,” the authors reported. “More than two-thirds” of the people surveyed felt that “the world would be a better place if men thought more like women.”30 Gerzema and D’Antonio boldly disseminate the finding that women bring invaluable assets to the leadership table and also call for men to embody these “feminine values.” This hasn’t always been the case. In the mid-1990s, organizational expert Daniel Goleman produced a series of articles in which he laid out what was considered a radical new prescription for leadership success. His articles highlighted the importance of using “emotional intelligence” in achieving leadership aims. They emphasized the value of “understanding other people’s emotional make-up,” of “considering others’ feelings, especially when making decisions,” and of “managing relationships so as to move people in desired directions.”31 To any discerning reader, the traits that Goleman singled out for praise must have sounded remarkably like a paraphrase of the “Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus” articles being
circulated at roughly the same time. But Goleman avoided acknowledging that his critical leadership attributes matched those that women tend to bring to the mix. It has taken till the second decade of the twentyfirst century for experts in the field to explicitly make that connection. In the end, all the reports, statistics, and analyses can be summarized very simply: • Women are making significant contributions in every arena that they enter. • An increasingly competitive, diverse society requires the kind of holistic and balanced pool of leadership talents, views, and assets that can come only when both genders are strongly represented in decision-making positions.
no women on their executive leadership teams.32 Women of color make up only 3.3 percent of board seats, a proportion that has not changed in several years. Similarly, for the last five consecutive years, more than two-thirds of the Fortune 500 companies have had no women of color on their boards of directors.33 And for all the strides they have made as entrepreneurs and in the fields of science and technology, women lag behind their male counterparts. The ongoing expansion of female students seeking degrees in the field of engineering still hasn’t brought women to 50 percent of total degrees awarded and women still tend to drop out of those engineering programs far more frequently than men.34 In the IT field, women are still being hired and promoted at a slower rate than men.35
The trajectory of women’s leadership remains far behind what one might expect, given women’s impressive educational achievements and the evidence that drawing on a broader range of talent makes for the greatest progress and success.
Similarly, despite their progress in launching small businesses, women still have a significantly harder time attracting robust investments than men.36 Venturebacked IT companies led by women receive from a third to a half less committed capital than those launched by men.
The numbers clearly reflect how few women sit in positions of institutional power at workplaces. Yet, across all fields, women have not come close to parity in leadership positions. At Fortune 500 companies, women hold 16.6 percent of board seats and 14.3 percent of executive officer positions, according to the 2012 Catalyst Census. Today, there are 21 female CEOs (4.2 percent) of Fortune 500 companies, while a full quarter of these companies still have
The underrepresentation of women at the top is not limited to the business world. The dial on the percentage of women leaders has yet to move significantly beyond roughly 20 percent, across a range of economic and political sectors. As the chart demonstrates, women still lag significantly behind men in achieving leadership positions in nonprofits, government, and other key sectors. Though the vast majority of workers in the 9
nonprofit sector are women (73 percent), men still hold a majority of top leadership positions (79 percent) and receive significantly higher incomes.37 And while we’ve seen leaders on the national stage, women’s political representation in state legislatures has hovered around 22 percent for the last 20 years.38 In the 1970s and 1980s, there was a rather sharp increase in gender equality as women entered a variety of previously excluded arenas, but this initial surge has been followed by a slow, flattening rate.39 And, unfortunately, overt discrimination against women continues in too many arenas.
Second, because people are less likely to associate women with competence, power, and leadership, women must do more than men to establish their authority and legitimacy.44 As Sheryl Sandberg laments in Lean In, “women have to prove themselves to a far greater extent than men do. And this is not just in our heads.”45 • In a 2004 The White House Project study, “Dial-Up/ Dial-Down,” voters were far more likely to automatically discount women as potential
political candidates on sight and in advance of hearing about their records than they were to discount similarly unfamiliar male candidates. They only began changing their assessments once they learned what those women had actually achieved.46 • In a pioneering 2000 study of gender attitudes, Claudia Goldin and Cecilia Rouse found that when major symphony orchestras evaluated potential new candidates for seats through “open” auditions (in which those candidates’ gender was obvious) they were several times less likely to select women to fill those seats than when they did it “blindly” (i.e., based solely on the candidates’ sound). While orchestral seats are not typically considered “leadership positions,” the study underlines the pervasive inability to realistically appraise expertise, achievement, and talent when those qualities are possessed by a woman.47
© The White House Project, Benchmarking Women’s Leadership, (2009)
The explanation for the stalled speed of women’s advancement is complex and multifaceted. First, professors Robin Ely, Herminia Ibarra, and Deborah Kolb argue that “becoming a leader involves much more than being put in a leadership role, acquiring new skills, and adapting one’s style to the
requirements of that role. It involves a fundamental identity shift.”40 Moreover, they argue, the presence of subtle gender biases in society and within organizations “disrupts the learning cycle at the heart of becoming a leader.”41 As a result, women are less likely to perceive themselves as leaders and recognize their own leadership abilities,42 and thus have a reduced sense of power and agency.43
The third, related reason for women’s slowed progress is connected to what is generally referred to as the “double bind”: when women possess traits that are seen as “leaderly” (i.e., masculine), they are respected but not liked, but when they take up the role of nurturing or caretaking, they may be liked but not respected.48 Popularized by the Lean In debate, the “Heidi/ Howard” case tells us what women already know. Former Columbia Business School professor Frank Flynn described the recent experiment in which he presented a case study of a successful Silicon Valley venture capitalist and entrepreneur to two groups of students. He taught the “Heidi Roizen” case to one group and the “Howard Roizen” case to the other. When he asked each group to assess the overall competence and appeal of the highlighted entrepreneur, the students rated Howard and Heidi as being “equally competent.” However, they differed dramatically in their reactions to the way this competence dovetailed with their preconceptions of gender. The students who studied Howard stated that “Howard is likeable. He is a person you could work with. A person you could trust.” Those who studied Heidi rated her as being “selfish, aggressive, and self-promoting.”49 The uncomfortable tradeoff between competence and likability has significant consequences for women aspiring to leadership positions. In a study of anger in the workplace, Yale psychologists Victoria Brescoll and Eric Uhlmann found that due to conflicting gender stereotypes, respondents perceived angry
women as “out of control” and incompetent, whereas angry men were perceived as competent and afforded higher status.50 When they break out of the stereotypical paradigm of “feminine” self-effacement to seek deserved attention and recognition, women are less likely to be considered for leadership positions because their behavior is contrary to the expectations of women’s appropriate behavior.51 Lastly, the lack of advancement is due in part to what Ely et al. call “second-generation gender bias” in organizations and institutions—“the powerful yet often invisible barriers to women’s advancement that arise from cultural beliefs about gender, as well as workplace structures, practices, and patterns of interaction that inadvertently favor men.”52 From the golf course to the cigar bar, these exclusionary patterns of social interaction in maledominated spaces (often after hours) result in organizational decision making in which women rarely partake. These social spaces are commonly referred to as the “real meeting after the meeting.”53 Workplace cultures that do not proactively try to change forms of secondgeneration gender bias, such as the “real meeting after the meeting,” will most likely continue to perpetuate it. Most studies analyzing the barriers to progress focus on the difficulties of getting ahead when women overwhelmingly remain the central providers of care for their families and homes. The constant challenges created by conflicts between work and home responsibilities—
compounded by the lack of bold flextime policies on the part of most industries, and the dearth of adequate investment in child care and elder care supports— continue to create major problems for women seeking leadership positions.54 A 2005 Harvard Business Review study conducted by Sylvia Ann Hewlett and Carolyn Buck Luce found that the majority of professional women step off the career fast track at least once to raise children, care for elderly parents, or manage other family demands. When they’re ready to step back on track—just a short time later—they hit a wall. On-ramps are few and far between, and the financial penalties for “time out” are punishing. The result? Many women are lost on reentry, and companies miss the chance to leverage this talent pool.55 The McKinsey & Company report Unlocking the Full Potential of Women at Work found: • Roughly half the women executives surveyed reported being both the primary breadwinners and the primary caregivers in their families. Most of the male leaders in the same companies did not characterize themselves as primary caregivers. • A majority of those women noted that at some point they had “slowed their careers” or “shifted roles” so as to increase the predictability of their work schedules or to lessen travel obligations in order to meet family 11
responsibilities. This was not true for any of the men in comparable positions. • Perhaps most importantly of all, almost every woman surveyed remarked that what tends to “go by the board” in the effort to juggle family and work responsibilities are the critical activities of networking, seeking champions, career strategizing, and building alliances.56 Without the time to carry out 12
these functions, women lose out on some of the most vital resources required for advancement.57 Whatever particular combination of factors hinder women from full participation at the world’s decision-making tables, it is clear that there is a continued need for strong, determined individual and collective action on all of these fronts.
Solutions So, how should women aspiring to leadership positions proceed? How can they build on the progress to date—the shifting attitudes, the new evidence, the promising opportunities— to create a more diverse, broader, betterequipped cadre of leadership for our evolving society? At the Athena Center, we believe that solutions must address the structural biases most women face within their businesses and organizations, from employee policies to informal workplace hierarchies. As Ely et al. suggest, organizations and corporations “must support a woman’s motivation to lead and also increase the likelihood that others will recognize and encourage her efforts— even when she doesn’t look or behave like the current generation of senior executives.”58 They continue: As a person’s leadership capabilities grow and opportunities to demonstrate them expand, high-profile, challenging assignments, and other organizational endorsements become more likely. Such affirmation gives the person the fortitude to step outside a comfort zone and experiment with unfamiliar behaviors and news ways of exercising leadership. An absence of affirmation, however, diminishes self-confidence and discourages him or her from seeking developmental opportunities to grow through new assignments and real achievements.59 Beyond institutional change, we believe that individual women must develop their own leadership identity built upon a set of powerful attributes and skills included in the Athena CORE10. These interconnected competencies were selected for their proven role in supporting a lifelong trajectory of effective leadership. Some are qualities that primarily promote the initial move into a position of power and are needed to start any new enterprise. Others are the tools women need once they have adopted a leadership
role, while others help the maintenance and ongoing refinement of that position. The CORE10 attributes and skills are as follows: 1. Vision: Creating, defining, and motivating others with purpose. 2. Ambition: Striving for success, owning expertise, and projecting power. 3. Courage: Taking bold, strategic risks. 4. Entrepreneurial Spirit: Being imaginative, flexible, and persistent in pursuing opportunity. 5. Resilience: Learning and bouncing back from adversity. 6. Communication: Listening actively, speaking persuasively, and establishing authority. 7. Leverage: Identifying and optimizing the use of key resources. 8. Collaboration: Sharing diverse strengths and perspectives. 9. Negotiation: Bridging differences to come to a beneficial agreement. 10. Advocacy: Standing up for yourself—and for others. Finally, the CORE10 are based on research taken from a cross section of the literature on women’s leadership as well as on what women leaders across a range of sectors and forums have begun to express and codify. We offer them to the ongoing cadre of diverse and visionary women who are changing the shape and quality of leadership of this nation and the world.
“Let nothing dim the light that shines from within.” Maya Angelou, author and poet
The Athena CORE10 Vision: Creating, Defining, and Motivating Others with Purpose Great leaders are those who set out to change the status quo and inspire effective action in others. John F. Kennedy’s dream of landing a man on the moon inspired a nation; Gloria Steinem’s call for gender equality led the second wave of feminism to new heights; Martin Luther King Jr.’s vision of a world free from racial segregation spurred millions to take action and sparked significant changes in society. Visionary women leaders do not simply accept the norm, they push society forward: Wangari Maathai, Susan B. Anthony, Harriet Tubman, and Margaret Mead, all presented inspiring stories of a safer, fairer, or more sustainable world, and in turn motivated others to work toward their goals. This ability to imagine a new reality and inspire others to take action is what distinguishes great leaders from followers. But unfortunately, in the everyday organizational settings where most women operate, women seem to be less willing than their male colleagues to offer new ideas and consider themselves “visionaries.” INSEAD researchers Drs. Herminia Ibarra and Otilia Obodaru applied a gendered analysis to the Global Executive Leadership Inventory, where 22,244 participants evaluated their own leadership skills and those of their colleagues.60 They found that while women received higher ratings than men
on a range of leadership skills, including “generating strategic analyses” and “crafting logical implementation plans,” women were consistently ranked as less competent than men in the area of “envisioning” (i.e., “telling stories in ways that ignite” followers and further action). For example, one leading “The only thing service industry CEO worse than being who typified this blind is having sight seeming “blind spot” in female leadership but no vision.” abilities had achieved Helen Keller, some impressive results author and political activist for her company, such as creating a new strategic direction, doubling revenues and operating margins, and undertaking a fundamental reorganization of core processes and structures. However, she remained resistant to adopting what she called “broadbrush, big-picture” thinking. She perceived this type of behavior as unbecoming, a waste of time, and not suited to her personality. For this reason, Ibarra and Obodaru contend that she and similarly cautious female colleagues are limiting both their own progress and the progress of their organizations by not considering themselves “visionary thinkers.”61 Ibarra and Obodaru posit three explanations as to why women score low on vision. First, women come to their visions in a different 15
way from men and consider them a more collaborative process rather than a product of individual effort. The authors caution that whatever the advantages of a collaborative approach, it may mean that individual women may claim and receive less credit for their visions. Second, they argue that women are more likely to base their decisions on concrete facts and hesitate to paint a picture of the future that may or may not come to fruition. Finally, based on interviews with executive women, they found that women don’t value the more abstract visionary thinking as much as they value their practical orientation toward solving problems. Yet vision is a critical component to effective leadership. That women have succeeded in this area makes certain that they have the ability to be visionary leaders.62 Wherever they happen to be—in the boardroom, in an informal staff meeting, in a classroom, or on the shop floor—women can hone their ability to imagine and define their own vision and convey it to others in a confident manner. This is vitally important both for individual advancement and if women are to engage in meaningful work that will advance and improve society.63
| T IPS CREATE Give yourself a window. Finding your purpose can feel stressful, daunting, and overwhelming. How about asking, “What do I want when I am [age + 10]?” Go to a comfortable place and close your eyes. Jot down the picture you are seeing of yourself as a leader. Don’t get hung up on what you should be doing; instead tap into the things you love doing. Note when they occur: Do they take place at work? At home? When you’re engaged in your community? In Person: Do visioning exercises. From outlining your “ideal day” to meeting your “future self,” you can use tools online to help determine what you want for yourself. Visioning exercises take maturity and a leap of faith.
Online: For a little inspiration to get you started, pick up Angella Nazarian’s Pioneers of the Possible: Celebrating Visionary Women of the World, which tells the stories of 25 remarkable visionary women leaders in history. Her blog chronicles phenomenal women creating their vision every day at angellanazarian.com/blog.
DEFINE Then think bigger. Whether it is waking up an extra 30 minutes early or taking your full lunch hour, set aside time to describe your vision. Then think bigger. Management expert Jim Collins suggests that you develop BHAGs—Big, Hairy, Audacious Goals at www.jimcollins.com/tools/diagnostic-tool.pdf. Get to the point where you can laugh about the audacity of your possibilities.
MOTIVATE Learn to tell stories. Bold, new ideas don’t live in PowerPoints; they are emotional, experienced, and felt. Stories have long been known to move people to action on a deeper, more emotional level compared to facts and figures and—lucky for you—storytelling can be learned through workshops and continued practice. Setting a vision in the workplace requires the motivation of others. While every project need not be a fable, do make sure the most junior people on the team can recite the “why” they are doing the work and where it fits within your grand plan. Online: Peruse best practices at Echoing Green’s “Work on Purpose” site at www.echoinggreen.org/work-on-purpose. Targeted at social entrepreneurs, their equation, “head + heart = purpose,” has universal appeal and leads to inspiring stories from their alumni network. Be aware of: Undervaluing your ideas or goals. The trick: flip it. Take the statement “That wasn’t a good idea anyway” and flip the negative: “That idea was pretty darn good.” The more excited and confident you are in your idea, the more likely others will follow you.
Helene D. Gayle
Helene D. Gayle, BC ’76, Athena advisory board member and 2012 recipient of the Barnard Medal of Distinction, began as a pediatrician in a low-income urban community with the goal of “helping people,” but she soon realized that the problems she saw were systemic, not individual. She decided to pursue policy work that would impact millions and change the terms of the struggle—policy work based on improving conditions for the women and girls who, if educated and empowered, would have fewer children, reinvest in their families, and demand the safe sex practices that can reduce the spread of AIDS. She earned an MPH from Johns Hopkins and pursued her vision of a world improved for and by women as a director within the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Today, as the CEO of CARE, Gayle is spearheading a range of initiatives that will increase access to good obstetric and gynecological care, primary education, and basic financial services for millions of girls and women globally. “My thread has always been, ‘How can I have the greatest impact on the greatest number of people? How can I use my tools . . . as a driver for that?’”64 Named one of Forbes’s “World’s 100 Most Powerful Women,” Foreign Policy’s “Top 100 Global Thinkers,” and the Wall Street Journal’s “50 Women to Watch,” Gayle is clearly someone who uses her vision to move major organizations and reshape the world.65
© Barnard College
Ambition: Striving for Success, Owning Expertise, and Projecting Power The Athena Center includes three components within its definition of ambition: the pursuit of success, recognition of one’s own expertise, and the ability to project power. Women should understand and use each of these aspects of ambition as they pursue leadership. There is little doubt that women have the ability to be ambitious66 and have advanced to leadership in diverse fields, from the arts to business to science and technology, and more. Today’s young women are more ambitious than ever, representing more than half of college enrollments and a majority of law and medical school students. A 2012 Pew Research Center survey of young men and women between the ages of 18 and 34 revealed that two-thirds (66 percent) of women ranked having a “profitable career” at or near the top of their list of priorities—in comparison to 56 percent in 1997.67 In a 2010 study by the Center for Work-Life Policy, 47 percent of women 30 years and younger described themselves as “very ambitious.” Although more men self-identify as ambitious, with 62 percent in the same age cohort describing themselves as “very ambitious,”68 these are clear indications that women are increasingly developing a robust and healthy aspiration to achieve.69
positions where outsiders could look at them and say, “Ah, you’re a very successful individual,” because of the label. But, if you don’t like what you’re doing and feel you’re not making a contribution, I think it’s really tough to look at yourself and say you’re successful.71 Success for women most often includes balancing fulfilling work, a social/family life, and a connection to meaningful societal impact.72 In contrast, men continue to be more concerned about traditional markings of success, including title, authority, and compensation.73
When women do strive for traditional measures of success, they can be penalized by work cultures with gender bias. All too often, ambitious women are perceived negatively—as selfish, egotistical, and in conflict with traditional norms of femininity74 —and this perception places women in untenable positions.75 Women who are assertive at work are penalized for being angry and uncompromising, while men who are equally assertive are perceived as courageous and receive praise.76 Psychologists Victoria Brescoll and Eric Uhlmann put it this way, “what appears assertive, self-confident, “You need the or entrepreneurial in self-confidence to say, a man often looks abrasive, arrogant, or ‘This is who I am, self-promoting in a this is what I do.’” woman.”77
Significantly, how women define success is different from how men define what it means to be successful. In a study comparing how professionally Shelly Lazarus, accomplished women chairman emeritus, Ogilvy & Mather However, women face and men define success, double burdens. Those business professors who adhere to the more Lorraine Dyke and Steven traditional feminine roles, Murphy found that women more underplaying or minimizing their own often reject traditional definitions 70 ambitions, are dismissed as irrelevant or of success. For example, one woman stated: incompetent. This tension where “women I guess what I’m saying is that what who are considered feminine will be ignored people think is success is not important or judged as incompetent, and women who to me. I believe there are a lot of are competent, unfeminine”78 ensures that too 18
many women shy away from broadcasting their desire to lead and claiming credit for their accomplishments, with significant adverse effects on their career advancement. A survey of 4,500 business and finance professionals conducted by the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA) found that women do not get ahead as quickly or promoted as far as men because they tend to “minimize their own contributions.” They are “less likely than men to assert their talents and gain recognition; less confident than men about their skills and abilities; and more likely to say they need to [further] develop business acumen and leadership”—despite track records of “using leadership skills more frequently in their jobs than men.” As a result, they refrain from putting themselves in the running for promotion in a way that properly reflects their true potential79 and are less likely to demonstrate their expertise in key public forums, from boardrooms to C-suites to the op-ed pages of major publications.80 If ambitious women are to achieve their goals, they need to shift away from letting self-doubt hamper their progress. Rather, women must practice promoting their value, expertise, and worth, regardless of the consequence. Women need to feel free to speak up for their ideas and find ways to make their achievements, abilities, and ambitions known. The good news
is that as more individual women engage in self-promotion, it will cease to be seen as an anomaly and become the logical approach of a new corps of aspiring leaders. All over the world, women are redefining success. Women are asking, “What do I want for myself?” and getting ambitious about making the answer a reality.
| T I PS STRIVE Broadcast your desire to lead. Yep. It’s that simple: tell others about your desire to lead. Be clear in your language: “I’m really excited to put my name in for. . .” or “I see myself doing . . . in just a few years” or “I am going to run for that seat next time around.” When others know your ambitions, it becomes easier for them to suggest and support you when opportunities arise.
OWN Maximize your own contributions. In today’s economy, everyone must regularly practice promoting their value to their organization, company, or team. Demonstrate expertise by using numbers and anecdotes: “I’ve been here x years and my experience turning around that xyz account taught me. . .” For young women: claim everyday successes and for starters, 19
use “I” instead of “we” when you have made a contribution. For more senior women: demonstrate your experience and leadership in key public forums by speaking on panels and at conferences, getting mentioned on respected lists, or being nominated for awards.
more often than not—it’s best to go with the basics: open body language, straight posture, taking up space, and wearing appropriate clothes that make you feel good. When it comes to verbal leadership cues, use strong words, weave in your qualifications, and stand behind your decisions.
Online: Check out Athena Leadership Lab instructor Caroline Ceniza-Levine at www.SixFigureStart.com for tips on how to know and communicate your value.
In Person: Strategize about where you sit and how you enter a room to maximize your intended effect. Try “Power Posing” by Harvard Business School professor Amy Cuddy. She suggests you can “fake it till you make it” by utilizing your body to feel powerful.
In Person: Rooted in changing the voices and topics of the opinion pages, The Op-Ed Project, provides training all over the country. They have great exercises that help you identify and expand your areas of expertise (such as the aptly named “expertise triangle”). Find events and resources at www.theopedproject.org.
PROJECT Go with the basics. We all know that power is viewed through verbal and nonverbal cues. Stay away from lists that purport “five ways” for women to mimic male body language or verbal styles. Yes, let’s nip the upward inflection if it isn’t naturally occurring, but—
Online: Learn Amy’s story and the “Power Pose” at www.ted.com/talks/amy_cuddy_ your_body_language_shapes_who_you_ are.html. Be aware of: Casual sexism exists in the workplace, do your part to combat it. Ask your manager, “What does my being too ‘nice’ [or ‘aggressive’] have to do with my results?” Tell your peers, “I think she is pretty darn good at that. I trust her.” Stop your friends from demeaning powerful women as a form of venting.
A Latina girl raised in near poverty by a single mother in a housing project in the South Bronx, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor followed an uncertain path to what she calls “uncommon achievement.” However, what she had was an unstoppable faith in herself and her goals. Justice Sotomayor was realistic about evaluating— and single-minded about building—her skills, but she never allowed her cold-eyed assessments to cloud her aspirations or to impede the pursuit of happiness that comes with excelling. To hone her writing and speaking skills, which were clearly unequal to the magnitude of her ideas, Justice Sotomayor asked to study with the best student in her class and joined the debate team. Later, to counter charges that she was “intimidating and abrupt,” she asked her secretary to cue her in to when this was occurring so she could learn to score points with the calm, self-assured persuasiveness that comes with self-confidence. All of which stood her in impeccable stead as she became a judge, was nominated for the Supreme Court, and faced a rigorous and sometimes hostile Senate confirmation process. “The tide of insecurity would come in and out over the years,” she writes, “but . . . it would wash over the same bedrock certainty: ultimately, I know myself.”81
© The Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
Courage: Taking Bold, Strategic Risks Descriptions of good leadership invariably include the trait of courage: the willingness to take bold, strategic risks. Whether one is leading a social movement, a start-up business, or a Fortune 500 company, things can change only when someone is brave enough to challenge the status quo. Some research has concluded that women shy away from risk, or that they do not embrace it as fully as men, particularly in field experiments.82 However, others argue that the evidence is not so clear. The type of risk and the setting in which they find themselves factor greatly into how women react.83
Women points out that female-headed hedge funds survived the 2008–2009 financial crisis better than male-led funds because women investors conducted broader research than men before making bold investment decisions. They were more careful in considering the harm that risky decisions could bring to their clients.88 At the height of the financial boom that preceded the recession, many female fund managers were simply unwilling to take unnecessary risks for the sake of making themselves look as fearless and bold as their peers or because risk taking was the standard modus operandi in those heady profit-making days.
In her account of women’s leadership patterns A study conducted by the Simmons School across a range of arenas, Alyse Nelson, of Management and Hewlett-Packard on over president and CEO of Vital Voices Global 650 managerial women concurred, finding Partnership, argues that women do in fact act that women are more cautious with financial boldly when the occasion calls for it, but their investments than their male colleagues. reasons for doing so are different from men’s Nevertheless, they found that women do reasons.84 Women are what she calls “risktake greater risks with their own businesses adept,” more likely to take risks when they and when pursuing professional feel that their “backs are up against opportunities.89 When exploring the wall,” or when they are 85 women’s motivations for risk, improving the lives of others. the study showed that the For example, Liberian social majority of women decided worker Leymah Gbowee, “Fortune to take on new jobs, Barnard’s distinguished assignments, and programs befriends the bold.” visiting professor in because they wanted residence at the Athena Emily Dickinson, poet or believed they had the Center in 2013, organized “power to make an impact.”90 a series of highly daring and potentially dangerous “pray for There is much to be admired in peace” protests that were critical taking risks to save one’s community in terminating the country’s civil war or to escape an untenable situation, as this and won her the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize.86 requires considering the full potential impact At great personal risk, Saudi Arabian online of one’s risk taking on the well-being of activist Manal al-Sharif rebelled against a law that prohibits women from driving cars by others. That kind of meaningful, reasonable, posting a YouTube video of herself behind the non-egotistical approach to risk taking can be wheel. She was subsequently placed in jail for one of the most important things that women 87 her actions. contribute to the decision-making table. In addition, research shows that women tend to be more cautious and careful, weighing both the benefits and the potential harm that might ensue from a risky move. A recent study by the National Council for Research on
But women need to take risks to further their own ambitions, as well, and recognize that they bear significant costs when they are either externally or internally discouraged from taking chances, or are fearful or cautious 23
about new opportunities.91 In her article “The XX Factor: What’s Holding Women Back?” Sue Shellenbarger points out that women spend far too much time weighing pros and cons— wondering whether they have “what it takes” to jump on an opportunity or gain a promotion. She quotes Google’s senior vice president for people operations, Laszlo Bock, as saying, “Men jump at a chance, often before they are ready. But women must be prodded. . . By the time a woman says she is ready, she was probably ready a year ago.”92 However, if women want to achieve the leadership positions that their talents and experience merit, if they are to take advantage of the options and opportunities that come their way, they need to go beyond waiting for the dire circumstance or conducting an exhaustive analysis of a situation before making a move. Reason, modesty, prudence, and consideration for others are all positive traits associated with femininity, and women shouldn’t feel pressure to minimize them. But these qualities can potentially stand in the way of their own advancement. Courageous women will seize potential opportunities with bold selfconfidence to reach their leadership goals.
| T IPS ACT Gamble on yourself. Courage is about doing what it takes. No one is asking you to bet it all on red; we are simply asking you to start betting. See risk taking as another form of seizing opportunity for leadership. For too many of us, the status quo appears easier, even though this isn’t always the case. Take a chance on yourself; you may be surprised at how good you are.
Claim your fortune. As the old saying goes, “fortune favors the bold.” We agree. Stop waiting for when there are no other options, when you are pinned against a wall, or when circumstances are most dire before you take a big leap. Stop exaggerating the possibilities of what may go wrong; instead, start imagining the full extent of your success.
STRATEGIZE Weigh the action—not the decision. Say yes first. Replacing the “pros and cons” list that comes with contemplating a decision with a list of “who and how” can help you make the idea a reality. Have a plan of action—maybe even two or three. Regret is the downside of taking no risk, and, too often, we overestimate what may go wrong and underestimate our ability to handle it. In Person: Find a positive quote that gives you courage. Make it your mantra. Like Helen Keller said, “Life is either a daring adventure or nothing at all.” Online: Assessing “risk appetite” has long been a tactic for understanding your financial “stomach” for investing. Transfer these same principles to your individual ability to deal with uncertainty, as we often have similar values about risk regardless of the scenario. Margie Warrell, an expert in helping women harness their courage, offers a quiz online to help you first assess your courage quotient at www.margiewarrell.com/couragequiz. Be aware of: “I feel like a fraud.” Imposter syndrome may get the best of us from time to time, but begin to separate fact from fiction. Tell a friend about it and start dismantling. Put yourself in a friend’s shoes—you would never let her think that poorly of her accomplishments.
In late 2007, Sheryl Sandberg, Google’s vice president of global online sales and operations—a position in which she was responsible for, among other things, sales of Google’s advertising—first met Mark Zuckerberg, who was not yet even conducting a formal search for a COO. At the time, while a promising new social media forum with 12 million active users, Facebook had nowhere near the established corporate power of Google. Sandberg says in her book, Lean In, “I was not looking for new challenges but simply trying to get through each day. Still . . . I recognized that if I waited until the timing was exactly right, the opportunity would be gone.” Both parties clearly sensed the vast potential advantages of joining forces, and by March 2008, Sandberg had moved from her secure and prestigious seat at Google to become the COO of a nascent company that was ripe for her ideas and talents.93 It was a calculated but nonetheless audacious move that benefited all sides. “You have almost boundless opportunity in front of you,” Sandberg asserted in her commencement address to the 2011 graduating class at Barnard. “So, the question is, what are you going to do with it? . . . [Figure out] what in the world needs to change [and] what part you plan on playing in changing it . . . Think big . . . Put your foot on the gas pedal . . . Leadership belongs to those who take it.” 94
© Barnard College/Asiya Khaki
Entrepreneurial Spirit: Being Imaginative, Flexible, and Persistent in Pursuing Opportunity Whether the task at hand is to supplement a limited income by launching a home business, to use a radical new approach to address an urgent social problem, or to bring an interesting new product to market, an entrepreneur recognizes a need and seeks to fill it.95 Successful entrepreneurs bring to the table imaginative thinking, a nimbleness and flexibility in the face of challenge, and the ability to “pivot or persevere” when the moment calls for it—in short, a driving spirit of entrepreneurship. It is these attributes that are critical for leaders who routinely face change, constraints, or challenging circumstances. Women across the nation and the world are using their keen entrepreneurial spirit to create a flourishing collection of small businesses and firms that expand our markets and improve our communities.96 The number of women-owned firms in the United States has grown at 1.5 times the national average between 1997 and 2013.97 Women have also been making serious inroads into what is known as “social entrepreneurship”— ventures addressing serious economic and social challenges in innovative ways, such as creating jobs in areas with high rates of unemployment and extending access to credit and health-care services.98 One person who embodies this creative and innovative spirit is the late Mary Kay Ash, who founded Mary Kay Cosmetics in 1963. As a single mother, frustrated when a work promotion went to a man she trained, Mary Kay decided to start her own company with a “You can do it!” motto that has helped more than half a million women own their own share of the business. “There are four kinds of people in the world. Those who make things happen. Those who watch things happen. Those who wonder what happened and those who don’t know anything happened,” Mary Kay wrote. “I knew from a very early age that I wanted to be first on that list.”99 John Gerzema, author of The Athena Doctrine and an Athena Center fellow, has found that
innovative and imaginative thinking is highly correlated with “feminine traits.”100 More specifically, empathy, the ability to understand another person’s perspective, is “the starting point for exploring social needs and building a closer relationship with your customer.” Gerzema highlights that this quality can also “be an entirely new avenue for breakthrough innovation.”101 Studies also show that the greater the diversity on a team, the more innovative it will likely be.102 When there are at least “I had to three women on a make my own living board of directors, for example, and my own opportunity! they spur more But I made it! Don’t sit innovation— down and wait for the as well as opportunities to come. profit—relative Get up and make them!” to sector Madam C. J. Walker, competitors.103 America’s first self-made Management female millionaire professors Cristian Dezsö and David Goss found in their study of 1,500 US firms that when the percentage of women in senior management increases, so does the firm’s capacity for innovation.104 Similarly, research suggests that women have a reputation as strong adapters. In a study examining high-performing leadership competencies, supervisors around the globe rated women significantly higher than men in the category of adaptability.105 Women also recognize that flexibility contributes to their success. In an exploratory study of successful women-owned businesses, women entrepreneurs considered their ability to adapt to external and internal changes as one of the keys to their effectiveness.106 As one woman stated: Although it is critical to possess social capital, reputational capital, and human capital, it is especially important to know how to use these resources in a 27
way to be able to adapt to challenging situations, such as to diffuse clients’ angers and to convince clients in accepting my ideas.107 Of course, it is inevitable that manifesting any new idea comes with challenges that require tough decisions. In The Lean Startup, Eric Ries asserts that the critical and often necessary decision to “pivot or persevere” is fundamental to entrepreneurial success. Deciding whether and when to stick to one’s initial strategy or pivot to a new focus is key, Ries argues. Pivoting allows leaders to remain resilient in the face of mistakes and “to test new hypotheses about the product, business model, and engine of growth.”108 For leaders, this is the ability to remain true to one’s mission after experiencing setbacks and to make decisions that align with, but are not constrained by, one’s initial strategy. Persistence, the determination to achieve one’s ultimate goal despite difficulties, is considered one of the most vital traits of entrepreneurs. Staying focused in the face of adversity is what separates those who succeed from those who fail. At the Athena Center, we believe that this trait is so imperative for leadership that we dedicate the entire next section to “Resilience,” of which persistence is a necessary component. Successful leaders report that taking small, incremental steps and persisting in pursuing one’s larger goal is particularly effective and rewarding, and generates momentum for the entire team.109 The most important impact of women’s entrepreneurial spirit may be the example it provides to a world that continues to diversify with exponential speed. When leaders adopt these time-tested strategies of entrepreneurs—being imaginative, flexible, and persistent in pursuing opportunity—they are best able to manage change and succeed.
| T I PS IMAGINE Anything that you can see—you can do. Challenge the norm. Ask, “Why not?” Imagining allows us to see a reality that does not yet exist. Don’t analyze your imagination—its function is to connect seemingly unconnected dots. Envisioning a world that seems just out of reach can motivate you to lead this effort and others to follow your vision. In Person: What are you doing when you are your most creative self? Schedule time in your calendar to be inventive. Figure out what time of day or what environment brings out your most creative self.
ADAPT Adaptability is key. You must be willing to improve, refine, and customize along your leadership journey. Get comfortable with trying new things. Be open to pivoting, experimenting, and applying new solutions to old problems. Through all of this change, stay positive: every challenge is an opportunity. Online: Keep a document of your core values and convictions—these are the “nonnegotiables.” With everything else, agree to be nimble, open, and flexible. Try Evernote, an online notebook, to keep track of all of your great ideas at www.evernote.com.
PERSIST Be firm in your determination. Understand that things take time. Think big, but act incrementally. Take breaks but keep your conviction. Breakthroughs and opportunities often happen when we are at our most dire point. The ability to persevere—in spite of what comes our way—provides more opportunities for creativity. Be aware of: Overanalyzing. Tapping into your imagination or making rapid decisions can sometimes create a picture of what might go wrong. Catch yourself before going too far and get back to the good stuff.
Jessamyn Rodriguez founded Hot Bread Kitchen because of a deep passion, a core vision of “making a difference,” and a fortuitous slip of the tongue. Originally trained in public policy, Rodriguez was interviewing for jobs when she mentioned to a friend that she had been turned down for a position at Women’s World Banking. The friend heard it as “Women’s World Baking,” and suddenly Rodriguez’s mind was irretrievably “filled with images of women from all over the world, baking together, sharing recipes and cultures.”110 Rodriguez was astute and dogged about pursuing this intriguing vision. Soon after, she apprenticed herself to Mark Fiorentino, the head baker at Daniel Boulud’s restaurants to learn baking from “the best in the business.” Later, she tapped grants from Echoing Green and the New York Women’s Foundation, and persuaded a range of individual investors to pitch in. She convinced Ben Hershberger, baker for the prestigious Per Se restaurant, to provide her staff with training in the art of artisanal baking. Today, Hot Bread Kitchen has trained dozens of low-income immigrants from around the world, and its products can be found in major retail outlets such as Whole Foods. It provides its staff with on-the-job training, market-rate salaries, and English language, management and customer service classes—as well as opportunities to launch their own businesses through culinary incubator program HBK Incubates. It sells an array of breads—tortillas and challah, ciabatta and Persian Nan-e Qandi—to an expanding retail and wholesale market. A substantial portion of its budget derives from that income. Capitalizing on New Yorkers’ insatiable desire for good food, it is providing entrée to a billion-dollar specialty food industry to women who might never have even had access to a living-wage job.111
© Daniel Krieger
Resilience: Learning and Bouncing Back from Adversity Moving forward on the path to leadership, one can easily trip on the stones of adversity, criticism, and rejection. But a lifelong leader knows that these obstacles are not the end of the road but rather a test of one’s fortitude. It is the ability to withstand life’s inevitable failures—to learn from them and bounce back—that truly separates the great leaders. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines resilience as the “ability to recover from or adjust easily to misfortune or change.” A number of women leaders unmistakably demonstrate this competency. Hillary Clinton—a woman who continues to parlay a string of stressful and potentially defeating life events into a string of even stronger performances—has virtually become the definition of resilience. Barnard graduate Martha Stewart’s bold career revival after her release from prison in March 2005 demonstrated her remarkable elasticity of spirit. And certainly, the ability of women to bounce back from physical trauma is well recognized in medical literature.112 Studies show that when faced with dire consequences, such as war, natural disaster, and famine, the depth of resilience in women enables them to survive and protect their families.113 Until very recently, the attribute of “resilience” did not show up on any of the standard lists of leadership attributes—despite the fact that anyone launching a risky project or directing large groups of people relies upon great stores of resilience to survive the failures, mistakes, and criticisms that invariably follow these activities. Recent research, however, is confirming that resilience is vital for effective leadership. A 2010 survey conducted by the consulting firm Accenture—involving 524 senior executives from companies in 20 countries—found that more than two-thirds of the executives surveyed rated resilience as being “very to extremely important” to their work—and also rated women leaders as exhibiting more of this attribute than men.114
Similarly, a 2008 Girl Scout Research Institute study exploring perceptions of the personal leadership abilities of boys and girls nationwide found that self-confidence and the ability to be resilient to adversity are key components of girls’ leadership success. The Girl Scouts with the highest degree of leadership experience, self-confidence, and resilience were those of Latina and AfricanAmerican backgrounds.115 From the global marketplace to our neighborhood Girl Scouts, resilience matters. In addition, the notion that some failures are inevitable if companies are truly being innovative is growing more acceptable. The Harvard Business Review caused quite a stir when they devoted a full issue to “the F word” in 2011, launching a new dialogue on the value of failure. They drew much-needed attention to the overlooked lesson that leaders learn more from failure than success.116 “People think
that when something
Unfortunately, goes wrong it’s their there is strong fault. If only they had evidence that in many professional done something differently. situations, women But sometimes things go are less able or wrong to teach you willing to bounce what is right.” back from an initial failure. Rather, they Alice Walker, author abandon their goals at the first sign of criticism or rejection instead of taking constructive action to remedy the difficulties. For example, women scientists submitting papers for publication are more likely to give up when those papers are turned down, rather than rewriting and resubmitting those papers; men more often take the rejection in stride and resend their papers up to five times.117 Women political candidates who lose their first elections tend to drop out for good; their male counterparts tend to continue trying multiple times—each time benefiting from greater name recognition and experience.118 31
Women leaders need to draw upon their strength to withstand adversity, stop letting fear of failure immobilize them, and learn to bounce back from failure when it inevitably comes their way. A number of methods are now being tested that help build the individual’s capacity for resilience, from “the social resilience model”119 to “positive psychology”120 to individual coaching, all of which can be applied to sustain effective leadership. Of course, it is often easier said than done, especially for women who fear failure itself and lack self-confidence. According the 2011 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor United States report, female entrepreneurs are 6.7 percent more likely to fear failure than men, while men are 16.6 percent more likely to positively perceive their capabilities than women.121 Research also shows that women are quick to blame themselves for failures, while attributing their success to others or their environment. Men, on the other hand, are more likely to attribute their success to themselves and their failures to external factors.122 In short, women aiming for leadership positions must continue to develop the ability to learn from and bounce back from adversity. They need to develop more self-confidence, refrain from self-blame, and recognize those behaviors that can help them bounce back successfully from rejection, criticism, and failure.123 As Beth Weinstock, cofounder of The Resilience Group and an instructor in the Athena Center’s Leadership Lab, wrote in the Huffington Post, “Resilience is about attending to the positive possibilities, about the ability to move on from what hasn’t worked, staying aware of our individual gifts, talents, and strengths, and encouraging ourselves to keep moving forward.”124
| T IPS LEARN Find your resilient zone. Research continues to show us that we can rewire ourselves for better resilience. When life bumps you out of your “Resilient Zone,”125 instead of reacting
negatively or spiraling downward, tap into the human ability to self-regulate your emotions. First, learn to recognize what is too stressful or too exciting, and second, prepare ways to respond to those triggers appropriately. In a moment of anxiety, release tight muscles, change your posture, place your feet firmly on the floor, or slow your breathing. Online: Retired Army Brig. Gen. Loree Sutton, MD, and clinical trainer Laurie Leitch, PhD, offer “neuroscience-based self-regulation skills.” Download their app, “iChill” for the iPhone and Android, which provides stabilization skills for individuals. Want more? Watch their talk at PopTech 2012 for additional tips on how to cultivate resilience at poptech.org/popcasts/laurie_leitch_and_ loree_sutton_tapping_social_resilience.
BOUNCE BACK Recognize that failure happens to the best of us. Give yourself permission to fail. In fact, make it your friend. It is the fear of failure that is your enemy. Do not abandon goals after failure: reapply, run for office again, resubmit your resume. Most importantly, strategize about what went wrong and how to approach it differently the next time. Identify and practice what gets you going after a setback and the amount of time spent dwelling on the negative will begin to shrink. In Person: Talk with leaders who have failed. Listen to their stories. Try to learn from their mistakes. Most importantly, recognize their strategies for bouncing back. Appreciate them for sharing their failures. Online: In April 2011, the Harvard Business Review put out “The Failure Issue” and marked the start of a new conversation about what it means to fail. Check it out at hbr.org/archive-toc/BR1104. Be aware of attribution error. When women fail, we tend to blame ourselves. So go ahead and give yourself an out. “Hey! This is just my attribution error talking!” And then analyze what really caused the failure.
In 1978, Diana Nyad, age 28, attempted to become the first person to swim from Cuba to Florida without a shark cage (cages make the swim safer and easier by smoothing out choppy waves). But rough waters threw her off course, toward the Gulf of Mexico, after 41 hours and 49 minutes in the water. “I never had to summon so much willpower. I’ve never wanted anything so badly, and I’ve never tried so hard,” stated Nyad at the time, disappointed by her failure. The next year, Nyad broke the distance record by swimming from the Bahamas to Florida, 102.5 miles. Appeased, she quit swimming for 30 years. But as Nyad approached age 60, she felt the pangs of regret. She had not achieved her initial goal. Undeterred by her age or time away from the sport, Nyad began to train again for open water marathon swimming. In 2011, after whipping herself into excellent physical and mental shape, she attempted to fulfill her dream of swimming across the Florida Straits. Again, she was thwarted. On her second attempt, she suffered a 12-hour-long asthma attack after 28 hours of swimming. On her third try, Nyad was severely attacked by jellyfish. On her fourth attempt, Nyad’s stroke rate could not beat the strong current fighting against her. On August 31, 2013, a 64-year-old Nyad dove into the water once again (with a full-body wet suit to reduce the harm of jellyfish stings) with a firm resolve to achieve her goal and reach her destination.126 Fifty-two hours, 54 minutes, and 18.6 seconds later, Nyad walked onto the shores of Key West, Florida, on September 2, 2013, having accomplished an exceptional feat and setting the record for the longest ocean swim without a shark cage, 110 miles. During her swim, the water had gotten so cold that she did not stop to eat, hoping the constant movement would maintain her body temperature. When she arrived on shore, her lips and tongue swollen, she had three pieces of advice: “One is we should never, ever give up. Two is you never are too old to chase your dreams. Three is it looks like a solitary sport, but it takes a team.”127
© Dawn L. Blomgren
Communication: Listening Actively, Speaking Persuasively, and Establishing Authority Strong communication—the ability to listen actively, speak persuasively, and establish authority—is an integral skill for successful leaders. Throughout history, women’s words have moved audiences to action. Sojourner Truth’s Ain’t I a Woman? helped to connect the women’s and abolitionist agendas and push them a giant step forward. Pioneering astronaut Sally Ride’s “Shoot for the Stars” speech inspired new generations of girls to enter science. Aung San Suu Kyi’s 1990 “Freedom from Fear” speech sparked human rights reforms in Burma. Women are also known for being attentive listeners, and this has strengthened their positions in leadership. Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton helped reestablish global respect for the United States by listening to thousands of ordinary people around the world. Claire Watts, CEO of the retail-media giant QVC, is highly respected for scheduling “open door” meetings every Tuesday so that anyone in her globally based company is able to ask questions or share their views.128
life.132 Drs. David and Myra Sadker conducted a 20-year study of elementary and middle school classroom interactions that sharply illuminates why women lose out in a working world in which upward mobility can hinge on assertive, self-confident communication. The Sadkers noted that in response to questions by the teacher, boys did not hesitate to call out answers, and teachers listened when they did. In contrast, the girls who called out answers were told to “raise your hand if you want to speak.” Teachers often ignored girls when they didn’t raise their hands and encouraged them to speak up only when boys didn’t volunteer. The Sadkers watched as girls lowered their hands when not called on, while boys waved their hands up and down, changed arms, jumped out of their seats, and made pleading noises until they were noticed.133 While the Sadkers’ original study is nearly 20 years old, there is little evidence that classroom practices have radically changed. The message that women will not be recognized for speaking up has been internalized by generations of women. Indeed the cohort of students that the Sadkers studied are now in the current workforce: these women may now be reticent to contribute their ideas, as they sit in meetings and say little or are ignored.
Although women are adept listeners and their voices have mobilized millions, long-held stereotypes that women should “be seen and not heard” have constrained their success as leaders. Recent studies find that women are still less likely than men to speak up “The most Dr. Deborah Tannen, when in a group situation— courageous act noted linguist and author and less likely than men to is still to think for of Talking from 9 to 5: get credit for what they do 129 yourself. Aloud.” How Women’s and Men’s say. It is not uncommon Conversational Styles for women to have their Coco Chanel, fashion designer and Affect Who Gets Heard, ideas ignored—until they businesswoman are later floated by a male Who Gets Credit, and What colleague, at which point they Gets Done at Work, points are praised and adopted.130 When out that conversational rituals trying to convey basic authority in a common among women—designed to range of more ordinary situations, women are make women seem less boastful or to take still not taken as seriously as men.131 into account the feelings of the person being addressed—undercut women’s authority. Early on, boys and girls learn different Use of disclaiming phrases like “I don’t know communication patterns—often reinforced in if this is right” or “sorry to add this” or “I’m the classroom—that have ramifications later in not sure of this position, but . . .” and ending 34
sentences with upward inflections diminish how others perceive women’s confidence and competence. Consequently, their ideas are taken less seriously.134 Tannen and other communications specialists, such as author and speaker Connie Glaser, offer consistent advice. They counsel dropping the apologies and disclaimers, making views clear without preface, and using energetic presentations and action words. In addition, they urge women to actively listen to other women and point out when female colleagues’ comments are downplayed or credited to someone else. They suggest that women’s ideas need to be placed on the agenda before the meeting starts and that women must make proactive and astute use of all the available communication channels of the modern age. Too many women leaders struggle to establish an authoritative voice with their peers, managers, and teams. The masculine characteristics of speech—such as loudness, assertiveness, and the use of a deeper voice—are connected to how leaders are expected to communicate. Women, in contrast, are expected to be soft-spoken and cooperative, and generally have higher voices,
none of which are traditionally associated with leadership. When women adopt more masculine communication styles, they can be perceived as cold and too tough. When they adopt more feminine communication styles, they can be perceived as weak and not qualified.135 To combat this, women leaders need to directly and repeatedly refer to their qualifications so that audiences are able to remember why they have the authority to speak.136 As the number of women in positions of power grows, there will be greater space for the diversity of women’s communication styles. Women’s ideas have made significant, important contributions to conversations in business, politics, and the community. Their listening credentials—sensitivity to audience and an ability to seek more information— represent invaluable additions to the way that public discourse is conducted. These contributions should be made without the selfdeprecation and the swift retraction of hands— and views—that can undercut authority and diminish their ability to speak their truths. Women’s voices need to be both confidently raised and effectively heard in order to substantially advance women’s leadership.
| T IPS LISTEN Listen with your whole self. When a great leader inspires us, we feel our whole body listening. We get goose bumps and sit on the edge of our seats. Although this is tougher in the day-to-day, try your best to listen with your whole body: make eye contact, acknowledge when you are in agreement, and pay attention to the speaker. Hidden gems lie in feedback and ideas from people and places we least expect. In Person: Turn off your cell phone or move away from your computer when engaging in face-to-face communication or on an important phone call. As it turns out, the brain cannot multitask as well as we think; instead, we often end up missing out on key information. Online: TED.com is full of great resources on listening. We like Julian Treasure’s “five ways to re-tune your ears for conscious listening— to other people and the world around you” that can be found online at www.ted.com/ talks/julian_treasure_5_ways_to_listen_ better.html.
PERSUADE Mimic, then master. Begin to take note of communication styles that you find effective. Start to mimic them or “try on” different approaches. Since women have fewer role models for what powerful women look and sound like, it is critical that you seek out female role models and begin to compose your own style. As always, use phrases that demonstrate confidence, such as “I strongly recommend” or “After reviewing the material, I propose,” instead of “I feel,” “I think,” or “I believe.”
In Person: Take a workshop or class, preferably one where you are videotaped and can watch your performance. Practice makes perfect with public speaking. Can’t afford it? Online: Get out a pen and paper. Resources are plentiful when it comes to communicating more effectively. Find what works for your leadership style. For starters, begin with the expert: Dr. Deborah Tannen offers free podcasts, and ebooks and her best-selling books for purchase on her website at www9. georgetown.edu/faculty/tannend/bio.html.
ESTABLISH AUTHORITY Gravitas is a state of being. Yes, having poise under pressure is a leadership quality that comes with experience, but it can also be learned. Preparing your mind and body for what the day holds will leave you more prepared, better composed, and able to lead as the day becomes more hectic. For women, research suggests that you must directly and repeatedly state your qualifications. Finally, make sure to pause for gracious applause or praise after you speak, it is not only respectful, but “leaderly.” In Person: Drop the apologies and disclaimers. Practice strong but comfortable body language, especially for presentations or tough conversations. Online: Read the 2012 study by The Center for Talent Innovation on how to get promoted at www.worklifepolicy.org. Eighteen focus groups, nearly 4,000 college-graduate professionals, and over 50 high-level executives were surveyed on the core traits of gravitas. Both men and women ranked “Confidence” or “Grace under fire” as the number one attributes.
Oprah Winfrey, the media mogul, talk show host, and epitome of the self-made American woman, uses the power of her voice to enact change today. Growing up in rural poverty, Winfrey was taught to read and write before the age of three by her grandmother and quickly learned the power of words and of education. Moving to Milwaukee to live with her mother at the age of six, however, Winfrey was raped by multiple family members and friends, and she found herself silenced by the pain of her sexual abuse. She relearned the importance of communication and the power of her voice in high school, however. A speech contest victory landed her a full scholarship to Tennessee State University, where she studied speech communications and performing arts. She became the youngest news anchor at a Nashville television station following graduation and went on to host The Oprah Winfrey Show, which would become televisionâ€™s highest-rated talk show. Today, Winfrey has expanded her media empire to include Harpo Studios, O, The Oprah Magazine, and the Oprah Winfrey Network (OWN). Among other accolades, she has been nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her role in The Color Purple, has written six books, and has produced multiple films. Winfrey seems to have her foot in every door, a testament to the strength of her voice and her ability to communicate with the world.137
ÂŠ Barnard College
Leverage: Identifying and Optimizing the Use of Key Resources Great leaders do not act alone. They recognize that they need help to effectuate change; they need to rely on a strong foundation of support from other people and provide support for others as well. Finding and using a strong network of sponsors, mentors, and peers is a necessary and critical skill set of leaders. This leveraging of “people power” opens up unseen opportunities and provides greater access to those with organizational clout. And research shows that professionals who leverage their networks successfully are more likely to receive faster promotions and higher bonuses,138 and to make better decisions while in leadership positions.139
organizations.”141 They note that the mentors assigned to women by corporate employers tend to be people with limited organizational clout who are less interested in securing promotions for their mentees than in helping those mentees figure out their preferred styles of operating. In their 2011 study of 3,400 business professionals across 29 countries, Accenture examined the differing gender dynamics surrounding mentorship and sponsorship.142 They found that men more often see their mentors not as coaches but as sponsors. Men more often want, ask for, and receive help in identifying good opportunities and are more likely to obtain the endorsements required to seize those opportunities.143
Very few leaders achieved their positions without first attracting the attention and In addition, the researchers found that enlisting the assistance of key sponsors— informal mentoring relationships have allies who advocate for them at the shortcomings for women. The mentors that decision-making table and who have the women find on their own are often selected power to effect change (i.e., a “workplace 140 for the purpose of obtaining personal champion).” Fashion and business leader affirmation and support rather than career Donna Karan moved into the top position advancement.144 Women and people of color of Anne Klein’s design empire because she generally are more comfortable with mentor positioned herself as Anne Klein’s right hand. relationships where the mentor is of the Judith Jamison became artistic director of same sex or race.145 This practice of choosing the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater only informal mentors who exist in similar social after gaining Ailey’s confidence and firmly circles can be extremely limiting for women ensconcing herself in the business, and and racial minorities. Research also global pop singer Shakira thanks shows, however, that women Gloria Estefan for supporting leaders and leaders of color her successful transition into who are able to expand English-language music. “Give me a lever their circles and create Top political, business, long enough and relationships with a more and cultural leaders I could move diverse set of colleagues— gain their initial and the world.” including key male allies invaluable impetus by who often dominate having sponsors willing to Archimedes, Greek mathematician, positions of authority and third century BC spend substantial personal power—are more likely to be capital on promoting their successful.146 ascension. However, as business gurus Nancy Carter and Christine Silva of Catalyst and Herminia Ibarra of INSEAD explain, women, compared with men, are “overmentored, undersponsored, relative to their male peers— and that they are not advancing in their
Obtaining support from diverse sources—from the open networks (where not everyone knows one another) that men traditionally form, rather than the small, closed networks that women tend to cultivate147— is not only “strategically wise” but also
improves one’s ability to make better leadership decisions. These leaders who draw from open networks are better able to find and assess a broad range of ideas, information, and advice. Leveraging these connections for more than broad feedback is a key aspect of the relationship.148 The growth of new technologies has created a new venue for mentorship, sponsorship, and networking.149 Though this is no substitute for face-to-face interaction, access to the web has expanded people’s ability to connect with others.150 Studies indicate that increasing the access to and transparency of professional networks is particularly helpful for women, who were long shut out of the rooms where opportunities are found and decisions are made.151 Now, women can use technology— from LinkedIn to Facebook to Twitter—to meet new people and expand their networks.152 There can be no doubt that the structure of social and digital networks—open, transparent, and relational—is a territory where women can excel. Women with aspirations for leadership positions cannot afford to remain ignorant or uninvolved in leveraging their own resources. Identifying and fostering transactional relationships with mentors and sponsors and creating an open social network provides a web of support and encouragement that is essential to career advancement.
| T IPS IDENTIFY Diversify your network portfolio. Figure out if your network is “open” (where the people in your network are not likely to know one another) or “closed” (where the people in your network are likely to know one another). Make lists of people with whom you would like to connect or who can support your leadership goals. Be open to meeting people in unfamiliar places and reaching out long after your initial meeting. Get comfortable with feelings of “transaction” (i.e., trading resources,
connections, or advice). Because you are in it for the long haul, you do not need to return the favor right away. In Person: As Keith Ferrazzi suggests in Never Eat Alone, schedule lunch (or coffee) with a new person once a week. For more tips, visit keithferrazzi.com/products/nevereat-alone.
OPTIMIZE Get more. After you’ve created your list, be strategic, specific, and sincere in asking for something from a mentor. Don’t waste their time or yours. Create two columns: 1) Name and 2) “My Concrete Ask.” From those same people, get more than advice. Ask for public endorsements, a commitment to your next promotion, and, of course, introductions to others. Do not burn bridges—most mentormentee relationships last a lifetime. Online: Use technology, but understand your audience. There are key generational differences when it comes to online networking: some people simply don’t use technology or prefer face-to-face interactions, while others may primarily network through digital venues such as LinkedIn at www.linkedin.com. There is not a one-sizefits-all approach. Both matter. In Person: Get yourself a sponsor—someone who has power in your field and is willing to use that influence on your behalf. Check out the Harvard Business Review article “The Sponsor Effect: Breaking Through the Last Glass Ceiling” at hbr.org/product/thesponsor-effect-breaking-through-the-lastglass-ceiling/an/10428-PDF-ENG. Be aware of: The feeling that you are asking for “a lot” or “too much.” Most people are happy to help, and if they can’t, they’ll be open to connecting you to someone who can. Besides, you will simply never know if you don’t ask.
Margaret Thatcher (1925–2013) was Britain’s first female prime minister, the first female leader of the West, and the longestserving British prime minister in recent times. Considered one of the most influential politicians of the twentieth century, Thatcher garnered invaluable assistance from mentors and sponsors. At Oxford, Thatcher studied under Noble Prize–winning chemistry professor Dorothy Hodgkin, one of the few women in the field, and while she was in Parliament, fellow MP Irene Ward offered her the following sage advice: “While the home must always be the center of one’s life, it should not be the boundary of one’s ambitions.” Thatcher credited those words as influential throughout her career.153 While in Parliament, she also worked closely with Sir Keith Joseph to support reforms that were not always popular, such as deregulating state industries. He then selected her as vice chair of his Center for Policy Studies. Joseph rose as a leader within the British Conservative Party and many looked to him to challenge the existing power structure. But instead, Joseph decided to sponsor Margaret Thatcher for the position and she ultimately won the Conservative Party leadership in 1975, the first woman ever to do so. When the Conservative Party won the national election in 1979, she became prime minister of Britain and to date, the only woman to serve in this role.154
© AP Photo/Suzanne Vlamis
Collaboration: Sharing Diverse Strengths and Perspectives In recent years, particularly in the wake of the 2008 recession, leadership experts have begun to highlight collaboration as a critical attribute of successful leaders. They argue that businesses that strategically share and pool perspectives, expertise, resources, and strengths grow.155 “To lead in this new century, we need authentic leaders who [go beyond top-down leadership] to empower leaders at all levels and collaborate,” asserted Bill George, Harvard Business School professor, in a March 2010 article in the Wall Street Journal.156
management meetings.”161 Organizations— such as Facebook and Google—that have moved away from the separate cubicle culture and adopted more open spaces find that this improves employee satisfaction, maximizes creativity, and fosters innovation—ultimately contributing to a stronger bottom line.162 Similarly, Cisco moved to open offices and permitted employees to telecommute or work in other places in the building. This has “raised satisfaction while boosting density. Now 140 employees are able to work comfortably where 88 would work in a traditional workspace.”163
While perhaps newly recognized as a Studies also indicate that collaborative and successful attribute in the business world, effective teams foster greater creativity collaboration has long been a central tenet and improve the rigor of research, and that of good female leadership practice. Women women are vital assets to creating these leaders have been using collaborative 157 effective research teams.164 Professors of leadership styles to draw on talents and organizational behavior Julia Bear and Anita knowledge from the widest possible range Woolley posit that “Recent evidence strongly of sources. Writing in Forbes, international suggests that team collaboration is greatly consulting firm partner Sasha Galbraith improved by the presence of women in the notes that “all the women entrepreneurs group, and this effect is primarily explained whom I’ve studied embrace teamwork by benefits to group processes.” Women’s and depend upon it absolutely to run their 158 strength as collaborative communicators organizations.” For example, Galbraith enhances their ability to resolve conflicts and highlights how Sandra Peterson, former CEO move ideas forward.165 Looking specifically of Bayer CropScience, would regularly invite at the fields of science and technology, Bear people “from the trenches” into management and Woolley argue that “promoting the role meetings, both to get “unfiltered information of women in the field can have positive from the people . . . who are actually practical consequences.”166 doing the work” and to ensure that there is adequate female “I never In addition, women’s representation in company 159 collaborative tendencies decision making. did anything also improve alone. Whatever was governance. Numerous Businesses that have accomplished in this studies on women internal structures to country was accomplished in the public sector foster collaboration collectively.” and creativity have found that improve their ability congresswomen Golda Meir, to be innovative and to collaborate more often former prime minister of Israel expand.160 For example, than their male colleagues, obtaining organizationand that female appointees wide feedback from employees work most effectively within a results in “better ideas and better team setting.167 For example, Laura organizational culture” than the practice of Kennedy, US ambassador to the Genevaholding strictly limited, “closed-door, off-site based Conference on Disarmament, points 43
to the notable success of female-led nuclear weapons negotiation teams. She argues that this principally derives from the idea that the women are “more attuned to working on teams.”168 Undoubtedly the leadership world as a whole has much to gain from adopting women’s ability to work collaboratively and to promote a horizontal and vertical sharing of resources and wisdom.
| T IPS IDENTIFY Assess and announce. Know your individual strengths and share them with your team. Assess your team’s strengths and share them with the members. Create structures and systems in your workplace that support cooperation and track the results. Collaborate up and down hierarchies, as well as across. Don’t be afraid to search out unlikely bedfellows: strange teams can often create unlikely success. Remember, in an increasingly interconnected world, collaboration is the way of the future. Online: Try Strengthsfinder 2.0. First, buy and read the book to get a unique code. 44
Then go online and use the code to take the assessment of over 34 themes to discover your strengths. There are free guides for working with your team, and more detailed reports and resources can be purchased at www.strengthsfinder.com.
SHARE Get ’em talking. Regularly invite people from other areas to contribute. Make sure the teams you put together are diverse across a range of issues—from areas of expertise to years in the company—as well as life experiences and demographics. Bring in speakers and share articles of interest with your team, always asking for candid responses. Treat everyone as equals when soliciting feedback. In Person: Be open to conflict. In fact, embrace it. Your behavior with regard to a respectful, healthy dialogue when conflict arises will not only create a better result, but will set a leadership standard for others to follow. Be aware of: Losing your leadership in all that collaborating. Don’t diminish your authority by letting conflict get the best of the meeting, losing control of delegating, or taking on too much as part of “sharing the load.”
Shirley Clarke Franklin When Shirley Clarke Franklin took office as mayor of Atlanta, Georgia, in 2002, she became the first black woman to be elected to such a high position in any major southern city. By the time she left in 2010, she was named one of the five best big-city mayors by Time magazine and one of the nation’s “Best Leaders” by U.S. News and World Report. In between those watershed events, she repaired a municipal sewer system that had been violating the federal Clean Water Act, burdening the government with huge fines from the Environmental Protection Agency and threatening to flood the entire metropolis with toxic debris; successfully averted a huge budget crisis; restored public confidence in government in the wake of the corrupt administration that she had inherited; and “greened” the city through the proactive encouragement of LEED-certified building construction. Franklin credits her successes to an unflinching dedication to collaboration with all the various segments of her constituency: rich and poor; black and white; business, nonprofit, and government. “If I did not find solid partnerships and willing partners in the private sector and in the public sector, I would just be one person’s voice,” she remarked to Atlanta magazine. “And you would be writing a story about: ‘Too bad she can’t get anybody to help her. She had the right ideas, but she wasn’t able to pull them off.’”169
© Purpose Built Communities
Negotiation: Bridging Differences to Come to a Beneficial Agreement One of the hidden skills required of masterful leaders is that of negotiation: using a strategic blend of toughness and diplomacy to bring diverse groups to a productive agreement on complex issues. Women have a well-earned reputation for mastering the critical leadership skill of negotiation; from boardrooms and committee meetings to decisions at the kitchen table, women effectively bridge differences and build consensus to achieve action.170 This strength is most apparent in the political sphere, where female Republican and Democratic representatives have consistently negotiated “across the aisle” to advance important policies. In her 20-plus-year career, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)—the first woman to serve as House minority leader and House speaker—has built an impressive track record for bringing a diversely constituted and often strongly fractious group of colleagues into agreement on controversial measures.171
evaporates when they are faced with the task of bargaining for their own well-being. In their formative book Women Don’t Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide, economist Linda Babcock and author Sara Laschever trace a detrimental pattern of women failing to make strong initial pitches for themselves at the outset of salary or promotion negotiations or backing away from bargaining once an offer has been made. The authors attribute this failure to the same constellation of factors that has threaded its way through almost every one of the CORE10: traditional norms of femininity—a reluctance to self-promote, a dread of being perceived as overly aggressive, a fear of being rejected—stalling women’s progress at almost every stage of leadership development.173
“The male leaders we’ve studied, on the other hand, have a tendency to start from their own point of view,” explains Dr. Herb Greenberg, Founder and CEO of Caliper. “And because they are not as flexible or willing to interact with others, the male leaders may tend to force their perspective and convince through the strength of their position . . . rather than actually persuading.”172
In a sobering report from Catalyst, Nancy Carter and Christine Silva pick up on “A lot of the point first raised by people are afraid the authors of Women to say what they Don’t Ask. They want. That’s why spell out, in actual they don’t get what dollars the long-term impact of women’s they want.” reluctance to articulate Madonna, artist and and negotiate for their entrepreneur own workplace demands. Women enter corporate America with salaries averaging $4,600 less than those secured by men with comparable education and experience. Over the course of a lifetime, this seemingly small differential translates into $600,000, an amount large enough to “underwrite a comfortable retirement nest egg, purchase a second home, or pay for the college education of a few children.”174 While many factors contribute to the gap between men and women’s salaries, women must to be able to negotiate for their own salaries, benefits, and working conditions in order to achieve parity in the workplace.175
Studies show, however, that women’s capacity for negotiation in the workplace apparently
The reluctance to negotiate on their own behalf affects women at all levels, even
Women’s unique strength as collaborative negotiators is also receiving increased recognition in the corporate sector. A study of male and female leaders representing 19 different business areas by the Princetonbased management consulting firm Caliper found that there was strong consensus that women leaders are far better than their male counterparts at “bringing groups around to their point of view” by listening, being attentive and understanding, and working to incorporate all the views being voiced.
women who are seemingly at the top of organizational hierarchies. Sheryl Sandberg, in her initial encounter with Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, evidently failed to pull out all the stops on the issue of salary. As recounted in her book, Lean In, she was willing to simply accept the first offer that Zuckerberg madeâ€” and returned to cut a better deal for herself only after her husband and brother-in-law â€œhounded herâ€? to demand more.176
Beyond a fear of negotiation, there are additional factors that may make it more difficult for women to negotiate effectively. Unlike men, women lose out when negotiations happen informally and under less transparent circumstances. For example, men are more likely to initiate conversations about a promotion or job change even when one has not been announced or listed, or to negotiate for a salary increase even when it
is advertised as “fixed.”177 A recent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that when women do know that wages are negotiable, the gender gap nearly disappears,178 and this trend holds across both male-dominated and female-dominated employment sectors.179 Similarly, psychologists Hannah Riley Bowles, Linda Babcock, and Kathleen McGinn show that gender stereotypes can have a negative effect on negotiation outcomes for women.180 They find that when women negotiate on behalf of others (conforming to gender stereotypes), they fare better than when negotiating solely on behalf of themselves.181 In sum, research shows that when there is greater transparency in the negotiation process and gender stereotypes are minimized, women perform as well as men in negotiation outcomes. Women leaders have already proven their strength as negotiators for achieving broader aims and objectives. The skills women use to negotiate on behalf of others—from brokering deals for their clients to haggling for their children—can also be utilized to negotiate for themselves. Both individual women and the broader institutions need to be aware of how to maximize women’s strength in negotiation. Developing one’s individual “negotiating voice” is key to this process and brings women closer to collective success.
| T IPS BRIDGE Don’t move your island—build your bridge. Before you go into any negotiation, know your final stance and what you may be willing to bargain away to get there. Attentively listen to the other party. What do they want out of the negotiation? What are their bottom lines? Leaders blend the needs of multiple parties into a final solution and are constantly working to get the whole team on board.
In Person: Especially when it comes to salary negotiation, research in advance the comparable salaries in your workplace and in your field. Always make a strong initial pitch for yourself, with openness to discussion. Ask for an odd number (it makes the interviewer think you took the time to calculate that figure), and make sure you can justify how you got to that number. Experts suggest smiling and cultivating a friendly environment, focusing on the interpersonal relationship in addition to the business case for your negotiation. Share your experience and resources with junior colleagues at the workplace or another network.
BENEFIT Don’t leave anything on the table. Calculate how much not negotiating will cost you. Find what is negotiable before going in, including the salary range and other elements of the compensation package. Understand that there are many things on the table, such as flextime, vacation, a clear path for promotion, ability to publish, or opportunities for travel, to name a few. Too often, we negotiate before we negotiate. Don’t make concessions before you get to the negotiating table. Online or In Person: Buy a book on negotiation and read it. Everyone should know the basics. We recommend the updated Women Don’t Ask by Linda Babcock and Athena Leadership Lab instructor Sara Laschever. Preparation is key. Follow the tips at www.womendontask.com that allow you to be the most prepared for your industry or situation, such as a first-time job or a soughtafter promotion. Be aware of: Backlash when women do negotiate. Unfortunately, the stereotype that women can’t or don’t negotiate can create negative reactions when we do, especially if we are up against gender bias.
Women are playing an increasingly important role in a range of critical and successful international negotiation efforts. Female diplomats currently occupy between 21 and 29 percent of senior positions at the State Department, USAID, and the Pentagon—higher percentages of female leadership than can be found in most other sectors. Women negotiators are particularly well represented in matters related to nuclear policy. It is a woman, Karin Look (who, not incidentally, now sits in the office once held by the Manhattan Project’s “Indispensable Man,” General Leslie Groves), who has been overseeing the dismantling of Libya’s nuclear weapons program. It was a woman, Rose Gottemoeller, who was responsible for heading the largely female American team that negotiated the pivotally important 2010 nuclear arms treaty with Russia. Gottemoeller recounts that when the American delegation first arrived in Moscow, one Russian general looked up and down the players seated at the table and asked, “How come you’ve got so many women?”182
© U.S. Department of State
Advocacy: Speaking Up for Yourself—and for Others Advocacy—whether “advocacy for others” or “advocacy for self”—is not generally highlighted as a key leadership attribute in mainstream leadership literature. It is not one of the 16 leadership strengths assessed in the Harvard Business Review’s “Study in Leadership: Women Do It Better than Men,”183 nor is it one of the eight practices deemed crucial to executive excellence by corporatemanagement consultant Peter F. Drucker in his Harvard Business Review essay “What Makes an Effective Executive?”184 In contrast, the Athena Center for Leadership Studies posits that advocacy for others—the fortitude to take an individual solution and translate it into a collective remedy—is a valuable leadership quality worthy of any leadership list and reflects what motivates many women to aspire to leadership positions. Effective advocacy on behalf of others is a hallmark accomplishment of some of the greatest women in history—from Susan B. Anthony fearlessly fighting for women’s suffrage to Eleanor Roosevelt forcefully addressing the issue of human rights. More recently, we’ve seen this quality in such lesser-known champions as Chai Feldblum, the Barnard alumna who successfully pushed for the passage of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act; Ai-jen Poo, the director of the National Domestic Workers Alliance, who advanced legislation that ensures better pay and employment conditions for housekeepers and home health aides; and Anu Bhagwati, the cofounder of the Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN), who has spearheaded efforts to reduce sexual harassment and violence against women in the US military.185 As psychologists Ronnie Janoff-Bulman and Mary Beth Wade point out, “Women are remarkably effective when asking for things for others or for their group. Mothers, for example, are terrific at advocating for their children or partners. Females are excellent advocates for coworkers.”186 When women conform to more standard gender roles and frame requests in terms of benefitting others (not just themselves), they are also more effective in achieving their goals.187
Yet, being an effective advocate for others is only half of the necessary skill set. To advance to leadership and effectively operate in leadership roles, women also need to be able to advocate for themselves. Common sense suggests that those who are willing to speak out for their own advancement are more likely to move up and earn both the power and influence necessary to make significant change. And here, research demonstrates, women are less effective due to both gender stereotypes embedded within institutions as well as gender stereotypes women themselves may internally hold.188 A survey of 4,500 business and finance professionals by the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA) found that women do not get ahead as quickly or promoted as far as men because they tend to “minimize their own contributions.” They are “less likely than men to assert their talents and gain recognition; less confident than men about their skills and abilities; and more likely to say they need to [further] develop business acumen and leadership,” despite track records of “using leadership skills more frequently in their jobs than men.”189
“There is a special place in Hell for women who don’t help other women.”
Many women believe that if they just do an excellent job, their success will likely be Madeleine Albright, recognized by others. first female U.S. Secretary of State Women often believe that they will then be asked to assume greater leadership without having to promote themselves for new assignments.190 In her August 2012 New York Times article, “In Google’s Inner Circle, a Falling Number of Women,” Claire Cain Miller observed that female candidates for jobs at this IT giant often remain so hesitant to talk about their achievements that they do not even make it past their first Google phone interview.191 And as we discussed in the “Negotiation” section, women are more likely than their male colleagues to minimize their own expertise and achievements.
We can see women’s reticence to promote themselves in a wide range of arenas. For example, one of the principle reasons that there are so few women in elected office is because women are less likely to put themselves forward as political candidates.192 In the business world, the same problem persists. Women are less likely to put themselves forward for a promotion or a position of leadership.193 Women’s hesitation to advocate for their own advancement has deep roots. Selfpromotion seems inappropriate, unladylike, and contrary to typical notions of femininity. When women break from these traditional roles, they face a bind that male colleagues don’t, as they are disliked rather than lauded by others.194 Women who take on leadership roles on behalf of others do not suffer the same penalties as women who appear to be self-motivated.195 Finding ways to navigate this gender bias is essential and as more women do so, the stereotypes and workplace cultures that hold women back will more quickly disappear. It is time for everyone to better celebrate and adopt “advocacy for others” as a vital component of leadership and a core value and skill that women bring to the table. But it is also time for women to better embrace “selfadvocacy” as a necessary tool for their own successful leadership ascension.
successful leader and adapt positive that language to describe yourself. In Person: Rewrite your resume or biography every year or after significant events, such as a mention in the media or a promotion. Update your LinkedIn or other social networks regularly. Remind yourself of what you have already accomplished. Be aware of: Results not being enough. If you are getting great results but are not willing to advocate for yourself, you are only achieving one part of the equation. It is rare that someone will look out for your best interests or for opportunities for your leadership if you aren’t willing to do so yourself.
OTHERS Help change the game. Use your influence on behalf of others to better the environment or shift the culture. Suggest a new workplace policy if yours is outdated. Strategically bend the ear of key decision makers. Get others on board with your plan. Most importantly, either be in leadership and make those decisions yourself or create new institutions of power and influence.
Online or In Person: Take a lobbying workshop or find resources online. The Center for Health and Gender Equity has a shortand-sweet guide to the basics of lobbying that can be found at www.genderhealth.org/files/ uploads/change/Tools_for_Advocacy/The_ Lobbying_Process.pdf. Learn the “ultimate art of influencing” for politics and see what tactics you can apply to advocating in other arenas.
It should feel a little like bragging. Selfpromotion is good! It means treating yourself the way you would treat a good friend. Try to introduce yourself the way you would a colleague you respect and admire. Recognize the language you use when describing a
Be aware of: Perfect getting in the way of good. Too many of us don’t do anything because we can’t do everything. Every little bit counts—from providing encouragement to making a small donation. Don’t stop there!
| T IPS
Since her early days as a Barnard student, BC ’74, no one has doubted Anna Quindlen’s talent as a writer. But what she has chosen to do with her skills is what distinguishes her from so many others who earn their living with words. A Pulitzer Prize–winning columnist with the New York Times and Newsweek, Quindlen was a public voice for women for more than two decades— advocating for public policies that change the lives of women and girls. But she was also able to recognize and support her own needs. With accolades under her belt, she gave up her powerful policy platform to concentrate on her first love—creating bestselling fiction. Her personal reflection essay “Advice to My Younger Self” sums up a philosophy of boldly advocating for both one’s self and others: “If I could . . . I would tell my younger self that she should stop listening to anyone who wanted to smack her down; that she was smart enough, resourceful, and hardworking enough—pretty terrific in general.”196
© Barnard College/Angela Radulescu
Acknowledgments Many thanks to all the people who have contributed their insight to this report. Particular thanks go to Susan Leicher, Erin Vilardi, Sara Angevine, and Kathryn Kolbert, the co-authors of the document, and to Barnard students Shin Woon and Sarah Esser, who helped with research. Thanks as well to the people, too numerous to list, who read early drafts and provided thoughtful feedback and expertise. They include illustrious academics, women leaders, members of the Athena Centerâ€™s Leadership Council and advisory board, instructors in the Athena Center professional development and Leadership Lab programs, as well as Athena Center staff.
While we often refer to male and female characteristics throughout this document, please note that we do not believe them to be genetically based, nor present in all women nor all men. Rather, we recognize that these characteristics are more correlated with one gender than another and that both individual men and women may fall in different places along a continuum of male/female tendencies. For example, not all women are more cautious than all men with their financial investments, but research by Croson and Gneezy shows that women are more likely than men to be more cautious with their financial investments, based on the statistical assumptions of probability in their study (Rachel Croson and Uri Gneezy, “Gender Differences in Preferences,” Journal of Economic Literature 47, no. 2 : 1–27). Yet some women may be more willing to take risks than some men who might be more cautious. Stephen J. Ceci, Wendy M. Williams, Rachel A. Sumner, and William C. DeFraine, “Do Subtle Cues About Belongingness Constrain Women’s Career Choices?” Psychological Inquiry 22, no. 4 (2011): 255–258.
Peggy McIntosh, “White Privilege and Male Privilege,” in Privilege: A Reader, eds. Michael S. Kimmel and Abby S. Ferber (Boulder: Westview Press, 2003), 147–160.
American Express OPEN, The 2013 State of Women-Owned Business Report (2013).
Miriam Schwartz-Ziv, “Are All Welcome A-board: Does the Gender of Directors Matter?” unpublished working paper, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Harvard; Renée Adams, Stephen Gray, and John Nowland, “Does Gender Matter in the Boardroom? Evidence from the Market Reaction to Mandatory New Director Announcements,” (2011), available at SSRN 1953152; Jasmin Joecks, Kerstin Pull, and Karin Vetter, “Gender Diversity in the Boardroom and Firm Performance: What Exactly Constitutes a ‘Critical Mass?’” Journal of Business Ethics (2012): 1–12; Bin Srinidhi, Ferdinand A. Gul, and Judy Tsui,
“Female Directors and Earnings Quality,” Contemporary Accounting Research 28, no. 5 (2011): 1610–1644. 6
US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Women in the Labor Force, A Databook, report 1040 (February 2012).
US Department of Education, The Condition of Education 2012, National Center for Education Statistics 2012-045 (2012): 284-285.
Diane Chandler, “What Women Bring to the Exercise of Leadership,” Journal of Strategic Leadership, Regent University, Winter (2011).
9 Ibid. 10 Heidi Brown, “Women College Presidents’ Tough Test,” Forbes, October, 6, 2009; Harold V. Hartley III and Eric E. Godin, A Study of Career Patterns of the Presidents of Independent Colleges and Universities, The Council of Independent Schools (2009). 11
Bryan J. Cook and Young Kim, The American College President 2012, American Council of Education (2012).
12 Catalyst, Catalyst Quick Take: Women in Academia (2012). 13
Roy D. Adler, “Women in the Executive Suite Correlate to High Profits,” Harvard Business Review 79, no. 3 (2001).
14 Robin Cohen and Linda Kornfeld, “Women Leaders Boost Profit,” Barron’s Online, September 4, 2006; Mara Faccio, MariaTeresa Marchica, and Roberto Mura, “CEO Gender, Corporate Risk-Taking, and the Efficiency of Capital Allocation,” (2012). Available at SSRN 2021136. 15 Catalyst, The Bottom Line: Connecting Performance and Gender Diversity, Research Reports (January 2, 2004). 16 Craig Volden, Alan E. Wiseman, and Dana E. Wittmer, “The Legislative Effectiveness of Women in Congress,” manuscript, The Ohio State University (2010); Michelle L. Swers, The Difference Women Make: The Policy Impact of Women in Congress (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002); Sue Thomas, “The Impact of Women in State Legislative Policies,” The Journal of Politics 53, no. 4 (1991): 958–976.
Sarah Anzio and Christopher Berry, “The Jackie (and Jill) Robinson Effect: Why Do Congresswomen Outperform Congressmen?” American Journal of Political Science 55, no. 3 (2011): 478–93.
18 Lilliard E. Richardson and Patricia K. Freeman, “Gender Differences in Constituency Service Among State Legislators,” Political Research Quarterly 48, no. 1 (1995): 169–179. 19
M. E. Hawkesworth, Debra L. Dodson, Katherine E. Kleeman, Kathleen J. Casey, and Krista Jenkins, Legislating by and for Women: A Comparison of the 103rd and 104th Congresses, Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP) (2001); Dana Bash, “Mikulski Makes History While Creating a ‘Zone of Civility’ for Senate Women,” CNN, March 17, 2012, http:// www.cnn.com/2012/03/16/politics/ mikulski-history. Accessed September 3, 2013.
20 Sarah Macharia, Dermot O’Connor, and Lilian Ndangam, Who Makes the News? Global Media Monitoring Project 2010, World Association for Christian Communication (2010). 21 Diana Mitsu Klos, Status of Women in the Media 2013, Women’s Media Center (2013). 22 Stacy Smith, Katherine Pieper, and Marc Choueiti, Exploring the Barriers and Opportunities for Independent Women Filmmakers, Sundance Institute and Women in Film Los Angeles (2013). 23 Chandler, “What Women Bring to the Exercise of Leadership,” 8. 24 Rosabeth Moss Kanter, SuperCorp: How Vanguard Companies Create Innovation, Profits, Growth, and Social Good (New York: Random House, 2009), 183–84. 25 National Council for Research on Women, Women in Fund Management: A Road Map for Achieving Critical Mass and Why It Matters (2009). 26 Christopher F. Karpowitz, Tali Mendelberg, and Lee Shaker, “Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation,” American Political Science Review 106, no. 3 (2012): 533–547.
27 Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA), Breaking Glass: Strategies for Tomorrow’s Leaders (December 2010). See also Joanna Barsh and Lareina Yee, Unlocking the Full Potential of Women at Work, McKinsey & Company (April 30, 2012). 28 Catalyst, Catalyst Quick Take: Buying Power (2013). 29 John Gerzema and Michael D’Antonio, The Athena Doctrine (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2013). 30 Ibid. 31 See Harvard Business Review’s 10 Must Reads on Leadership (2011). 32 Catalyst, 2012 Catalyst Census: Fortune 500 Women Board of Directors (2012). 33 Ibid. 34 Cindy Padnos, “High Performance Entrepreneurs: Women in High-Tech,” Illuminate Ventures (February 1, 2010). 35 Catherine Ashcraft and Sarah Blithe, Women in IT: The Facts, National Center for Women & Information Technology (2009). 36 Justin Ewers, “Glass Ceiling? Female Entrepreneurs Thrive,” U.S. News and World Report, August 13, 2007. 37 The White House Project, Benchmarking Women’s Leadership, (2009). 38 Kira Sanbonmatsu, Susan J. Carroll, and Debbie Walsh, Poised to Run Women’s Pathways to the State Legislatures, Center for American Women and Politics, Rutgers University (2009). 39 The White House Project, Benchmarking Women’s Leadership; Ibid. See also Alice H. Eagly and Linda L. Carli, “Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership,” Harvard Business Review 85, no. 9 (2007): 62. 40 Robin J. Ely, Herminia Ibarra, and Deborah M. Kolb, “Women Rising: The Unseen Barriers,” Harvard Business Review 91, no. 9 (2013): 61–66. 41 Ibid. 42 Robin J. Ely, Herminia Ibarra, and Deborah M. Kolb, “Taking Gender into Account: Theory and Design for Women’s Leadership Development Programs,” Academy of Management Learning & Education 10, no. 3 (2011): 474–493. 43 Beth K. Humberd, “Seeing Herself as a Leader: A Study of Women’s Identities in Transitions to Greater Leadership,” Academy of Management Proceedings, no. 1 (2012): 1. 44 Ibid. See also Eagly and Carli, “Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership.” 45 Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead (New York: Random House, 2013), 8. 46 Marie C. Wilson, Closing the Leadership Gap: Why Women Can and Must Help Run the World (New York: Penguin, 2007).
47 Claudia Goldin and Cecilia Rouse, “Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of ‘Blind’ Auditions on Female Musicians,” The American Economic Review 90, no. 4 (2000): 715–741; Madeline E. Heilman, Aaron S. Wallen, Daniella Fuchs, and Melinda M. Tamkins, “Penalties for Success: Reactions to Women Who Succeed at Male Gender-Typed Tasks,” Journal of Applied Psychology 89, no. 3 (2004): 416. 48 Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Beyond the Double Bind: Women and Leadership (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995). 49 Stanford Graduate School of Business Newsletter, “Gender-Related Material in the New Core Curriculum,” January 1, 2007. 50 Victoria L. Brescoll and Eric Luis Uhlmann, “Can an Angry Woman Get Ahead? Status Conferral, Gender, and Expression of Emotion in the Workplace,” Psychological Science 19, no. 3 (2008): 268–275. 51 Catalyst, Women “Take Care,” Men “Take Charge,” Stereotyping of U.S. Business Leaders Exposed (October 19, 2005). 52 Ely, Ibarra, and Kolb, “Taking Gender into Account: Theory and Design for Women’s Leadership Development Programs”. 53 Barbara Annis, Gender Differences in the Workplace, Barbara Annis and Associates, Inc. (2013). 54 Alissa Quart, “Crushed by the Costs of Childcare,” New York Times, August 17, 2013. 55 Sylvia Ann Hewlett and Carolyn Buck Luce, “Off-ramps and On-ramps: Keeping Talented Women on the Road to Success,” Harvard Business Review 83, no. 3 (2005): 43. 56 Barsh and Yee, Unlocking the Full Potential of Women at Work. 57 Eagly and Carli, “Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership.” 58 Ely, Ibarra, and Kolb, “Women Rising: The Unseen Barriers.”. 59 Ibid.
The Athena Core10 60 Herminia Ibarra and Otilia Obodaru, “Women and The Vision Thing,” Harvard Business Review 87 (2009): 62–70. 61 Ibid. 62 Indeed, there is emerging yet contested evidence in evolutionary psychology that women’s capacity for recognizing complex patterns and details may help them see more possible solutions to a given problem and produces greater flexibility and imagination. For more information, please see Helen Fisher, The First Sex: The Natural Talents of Women and How They are Changing the World (New York: Random House Digital Inc., 2010). 63 Barry Salzberg, “What Millennials Want Most: A Career That Actually Matters,” Forbes, July 3, 2012.
64 Helene Gayle, “Athena Power Talks,” YouTube video, from the Athena Center of Leadership Studies, April 30, 2012. 65 “The World’s 100 Most Powerful Women,” Forbes, May 22, 2013; “The FP Top 100 Global Thinkers,” Foreign Policy, January 2010; Chase, Marilyn. “The 50 Women to Watch 2006.” The Wall Street Journal November 20, 2006.“Helene D. Gayle MD, MPH—President and Chief Executive Officer,” CARE, http://www.care.org/ about/et.asp. Accessed July 29, 2013. 66 Anna Fels, “Do Women Lack Ambition?” Harvard Business Review 82 (2004): 50–60. 67 Eileen Patten and Kim Parker, A Gender Reversal on Career Aspirations: Young Women Now Top Young Men in Valuing a High-Paying Career, Pew Research Center (2012). 68 Sylvia Ann Hewlett and Melinda Marshall Hewlett, “Does Female Ambition Require Sacrifice?” Harvard Business Review Blog Network, February 25, 2011, http:// blogs.hbr.org/hbr/hewlett/2011/02/ does_female_ambition_require_a.html. Accessed August 31, 2013. 69 James P. Concannon and Lloyd H. Barrow, “Men’s and Women’s Intentions to Persist in Undergraduate Engineering Degree Programs,” Journal of Science Education and Technology 19 (2010): 133–145. 70 Lorraine S. Dyke and Steven A. Murphy, “How We Define Success: A Qualitative Study of What Matters Most to Women and Men,” Sex Roles 55, no. 5–6 (2006): 357–371. 71 Ibid. 72 Kathleen Gerson, “Changing Lives, Resistant Institutions: A New Generation Negotiates Gender, Work, and Family Change,” Sociological Forum 24 (2009): 735–753. 73 Fanny M. Cheung and Diane F. Halpern, “Women at the Top: Powerful Leaders Define Success as Work + Family in a Culture of Gender,” American Psychologist 65 (2010): 182. 74 Laurie A. Rudman and Julie E. Phelan, “Backlash Effects for Disconfirming Gender Stereotypes in Organizations,” Research in Organizational Behavior 28 (2008): 61–79. 75 Ibid. 76 Jamieson, Beyond The Double Bind: Women and Leadership. 77 Brescoll and Uhlmann, “Can an Angry Woman Get Ahead? Status Conferral, Gender, and Expression of Emotion in the Workplace.” 78 Jamieson, Beyond The Double Bind: Women and Leadership. 79 Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA), Breaking Glass: Strategies for Tomorrow’s Leaders (December 2010). 80 Erika Fry, “It’s 2012 Already: Why is Opinion Writing Still Mostly Male?” Columbia Journalism Review (May 2012).
81 Emily Bazelon, “The Making of a Justice, ‘My Beloved World,’ by Sonia Sotomayor.” New York Times, January 18, 2013. 82 Catherine C. Eckel and Philip J. Grossman, “Men, Women and Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence,” Handbook of Experimental Economics Results 1 (2008): 1061–1073. 83 Ibid. 84 Alyse Nelson, Vital Voices: The Power of Women Leading Change Around the World (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2012) 85 Ibid. 86 Ester Addley, “Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Leymah Gbowee and Tawakkul Karman Win Nobel Prize,” The Guardian, October 7, 2011. 87 Nelson, Vital Voices. Al-Sharif has been released. 88 National Council for Research on Women, Women in Fund Management: A Road Map for Achieving Critical Mass and Why It Matters. 89 Center for Gender in Organizations, Risky Business: Busting the Myth of Women as Risk Averse (April 2009). 90 Ibid. 91
Sylvia Maxfield, Mary Shapiro, Vipin Gupta, and Susan Hass, “Gender and Risk: Women, Risk Taking and Risk Aversion,” Gender in Management: An International Journal 25 (2010): 586–604.
92 Sue Shellenbarger, “The XX Factor: What’s Holding Women Back?” Wall Street Journal, May 7, 2012. 93 Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead (New York: Random House, 2013), 98. 94 Sheryl Sandberg, “Facebook COO Sandberg: The Women of My Generation Blew It, So Equality Is Up to You, Graduates,” Business Insider, May 18, 2011. 95 Brett Nelson, “The Real Definition of Entrepreneurship,” Forbes, June 5, 2012. 96 Muriel Orhan and Don Scott, “Why Women Enter into Entrepreneurship: An Explanatory Model,” Women in Management Review 16 (2001): 232–247; Eileen M. Fischer, A. Rebecca Reuber, and Lorraine S. Dyke, “A Theoretical Overview and Extension of Research on Sex, Gender, and Entrepreneurship,” Journal of Business Venturing 8 (1993): 151–168. 97 American Express OPEN, The 2013 State of Women-Owned Business Report (2013); Maria Minniti and Pia Arenius, “Women in Entrepreneurship” (paper presented at the Entrepreneurial Advantage of Nations: First Annual Global Entrepreneurship Symposium, United Nations Headquarters, New York, April 2003).
98 But women’s entrepreneurial success overall still lags statistically behind men in terms of employing fewer people, making less money, and obtaining less start-up capital. For more information, please see Lesa Mitchell, Overcoming the Gender Gap: Women Entrepreneurs as Economic Drivers, Ewing Kauffman Foundation (September 2011). 99 Mary Kay Ash, Miracles Happen: The Life and Timeless Principles of the Founder of Mary Kay, Inc. (New York: Harper, 2003). 100 “Feminine” is defined by the participants in Gerzema’s study. A list of traits (such as reasonable, daring, energetic) was provided and participants classified the terms as either “masculine,” “feminine,” or “neutral.” 101 Gerzema and D’Antonio, The Athena Doctrine. 102 Lu Hong and Scott E. Page, “Groups of Diverse Problem Solvers Can Outperform Groups of High-Ability Problem Solvers,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101 (2004): 16385–16389; Victor Hwang, “Is Diversity the Secret to America’s Economic Renewal?” Forbes.com, November 7, 2012, http://www.forbes. com/sites/victorhwang/2012/11/07/ is-diversity-the-secret-key-to-americaseconomic-renewal/; Sandra Buchholz and Hans-Peter Blossfeld, “Changes in the Economy, the Labor Market, and Expectations for the Future: What Might Europe and the United States Look Like in Twenty-Five Years?” New Directions for Youth Development (2012): 17–25. 103 Vicki W. Kramer, Alison M. Konrad, Sumru Erkut, and Michele J. Hooper, Critical Mass on Corporate Boards: Why Three or More Women Enhance Governance, Wellesley Centers for Women (2006). 104 Cristian L. Dezsö and David Gaddis Ross, “Does Female Representation in Top Management Improve Firm Performance? A Panel Data Investigation,” Strategic Management Journal 33 (2012): 1072–1089. 105 Kathleen Cavallo and Dottie Brienza, “Emotional Competence and Leadership Excellence at Johnson & Johnson,” Europe’s Journal of Psychology 2, no. 1 (2006). This is also discussed at length in the “Resilience” section in this document.
110 David Pelcyger, “Profile: Jessamyn Rodriguez Cooks Up Job Opportunities at Hot Bread Kitchen.” pbs.org, November 18, 2012, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ rundown/2012/11/hot-bread-kitchen. html. Accessed August 29, 2013. 111 Florence Fabricant, “Hot Bread Kitchen Opens Retail Space,” New York Times, July 23, 2012; Hot Bread Kitchen, “Our Mission,” http://hotbreadkitchen.org/ about-us/our-mission. Accessed August 26, 2013. 112 For example, in a 2009 survey of 681,730 hospitalized adult trauma victims by Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and Howard University College of Medicine, doctors linked resilience in women to better recoveries and fewer complications from trauma. See Adil H. Haider, Joseph G. Crompton, Tolulope Oyetunji, Kent A. Stevens, David T. Efron, Alicia N. Kieninger, David C. Chang, Edward E. Cornwell III, and Elliott R. Haut, “Females Have Fewer Complications and Lower Mortality Following Trauma than Similarly Injured Males: A Risk Adjusted Analysis of Adults in the National Trauma Data Bank,” Surgery 146 (2009): 308–315. 113 Marguerite Waller and Jennifer Rycenga, eds., Frontline Feminisms: Women, War, and Resistance (New York: Taylor & Francis, 2001); Angela Radan, “Exposure to Violence and Expressions of Resilience in Central American Women Survivors of War,” Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma 14, no. 1–2 (2007): 147–164; Katie Sherwood and Helen Liebling-Kalifani, “A Grounded Theory Investigation into the Experiences of African Women Refugees: Effects on Resilience and Identity and Implications for Service Provision,” Journal of International Women’s Studies 13, no. 1 (2013): 86–108. 114 Accenture, Women Leaders and Resilience: Perspectives from the C-Suite (March 2010). 115 Judy Schoenberg, Kimberlee Salmond, and Paula Fleshman, Change It Up! What Girls Say About Redefining Leadership, Girl Scouts of the USA (2008). 116 Francesca Gino and Gary P. Pisano, “Why Leaders Don’t Learn from Success,” Harvard Business Review 89 (2011): 68–74.
106 Crystal X. Jiang, Monica A. Zimmerman, and Grace Chun Guo, “Growth of Women-Owned Businesses: The Effects of Intangible Resources and Social Competence,” Journal of Business Diversity 12, no. 1 (2012): 47–71.
117 Matthew R. E. Symonds, Neil J. Gemmell, Tamsin L. Braisher, Kylie L. Gorringe, and Mark A. Elgar, “Gender Differences in Publication Output: Towards an Unbiased Metric of Research Performance,” PLoS ONE 1 (2006): e127.
118 Richard Fox, Gender, Political Ambition and the Decision Not to Run for Office, Union College, 2003. Typescript.
108 Eric Ries, The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses (New York: Random House, 2011). 109 Steven N. Kaplan, Mark M. Klebanov, and Morten Sorensen, “Which CEO Characteristics and Abilities Matter?” The Journal of Finance 67, no. 3 (2012): 973–1007.
119 Drs. Laurie Leitch and Loree Sutton have bridged the fields of neuroscience and psychology to develop the “Social Resilience Model,” which helps people amplify their own resilience and makes biological self-regulation a core competency. When one reaches the “Resilient Zone” of their model, one can better respond—not just react—to challenges and better respond to the demands of leadership. See Threshold GlobalWorks, An Introduction to the Social Resilience Model (2013).
120 Martin Seligman, “Building Resilience,” Harvard Business Review 89 (2011): 100. 121 Kayla Turo, “Female Entrepreneurs: There’s Never Been a Better Time to Follow Your Dreams,” Modern Damsels, February 18, 2013. 122 Janet K. Swim and Lawrence J. Sanna, “He’s Skilled, She’s Lucky: A MetaAnalysis of Observers’ Attributions for Women’s and Men’s Successes and Failures,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22 (1996): 519. 123 Katie Aubrecht, “The New Vocabulary of Resilience and the Governance of University Student Life,” Studies in Social Justice 6 (2012): 67–83; Paul Smith, Peter Caputi, and Nadia Crittenden, “How Are Women’s Glass Ceiling Beliefs Related to Career Success?” Career Development International 17 (2012): 458–474. 124 Beth Weinstock, “Learning From Failure and Living in Resilience,” Huffington Post Business Blog, November 3, 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ beth-weinstock/learning-from-failureand_b_1070167.html. Last Modified November 3, 2011. 125 Threshold GlobalWorks, 2013. 126 Elizabeth Weil, “Marathon Swimmer Diana Nyad Takes on the Demons of the Sea,” New York Times, December 1, 2011. 127 Matt Pearce, “Diana Nyad, After Swim: ‘You’re Never Too Old to Chase your Dreams,’” Los Angeles Times, September 2, 2013. 128 Jenna Goudreau, “Eight Leadership Lessons from the World’s Most Powerful Women,” Forbes Magazine, March 21, 2013. 129 Christopher F. Karpowitz, Tali Mendelberg, and Lee Shaker, “Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation,” American Political Science Review 106 (2012): 533–547.
135 Wood, Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender, and Culture. See also Alice H. Eagly and Steven J. Karau, “Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice Toward Female Leaders,” Psychological Review 109 (2002): 573. 136 Tannen, Talking from 9 to 5! 137 Elizabeth Fry, “Complete Oprah Winfrey Biography,” http://oprah.about.com/od/ oprahbiography/tp/completebio.htm. Accessed August 19, 2013. 138 Jay B. Barney and Patrick M. Wright, “On Becoming a Strategic Partner: The Role of Human Resources in Gaining Competitive Advantage,” Human Resource Management 37, no. 1 (1998): 31–46. 139 Herminia Ibarra and Mark Hunter, “How Leaders Create and Use Networks,” Harvard Business Review 85, no. 1 (2007): 40. 140 In contrast, a mentor is a person who provides career direction and advice, helps to identify opportunities, and offers feedback and support. 141 Herminia Ibarra, Nancy Carter, and Christine Silva, “Why Men Still Get More Promotions than Women,” Harvard Business Review 88 (2010): 80–85; Sylvia Ann Hewlett, Kerrie Peraino, Laura Sherbin, and Karen Sumberg, The Sponsor Effect: Breaking Through the Last Glass Ceiling, Harvard Business Review (2010). 142 Accenture, Reinvent Opportunity: Looking Through a New Lens (March 4, 2011). 143 Organizational psychologists Belle Rose Ragins and John Cotton, in their study on mentorship, found that women and men receive different outcomes in their mentor/protégé relationships and that formal mentoring relationships are not as effective for women. For more information, please see Belle Rose Ragins and John L. Cotton, “Mentor Functions and Outcomes: A Comparison of Men and Women in Formal and Informal Mentoring Relationships,” Journal of Applied Psychology 84 (1999): 529.
130 Deborah Tannen, “The Power of Talk: Who Gets Heard and Why,” Harvard Business Review 73 (1995): 138–148.
144 Accenture, Reinvent Opportunity.
131 Jennifer J. Peck, “Women and Promotion: The Influence of Communication Style,” in Gender and Communication at Work, eds. Mary Barrett and Marilyn J. Davidson (Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 2006), 50; Susan Schick Case, “Gender Differences in Communication and Behaviour in Organizations,” in Women in Management: Current Research Issues, eds. Marilyn J Davidson, Ronald J Burke (London: Paul Chapman, 1994), 144–167.
145 Belle Rose Ragins, John L. Cotton, and Janice S. Miller, “Marginal Mentoring: The Effects of Type of Mentor, Quality of Relationship, and Program Design on Work and Career Attitudes,” Academy of Management Journal 43 (2000): 1177– 1194; Penelope Lockwood, “‘Someone Like Me Can Be Successful’: Do College Students Need Same-Gender Role Models?” Psychology of Women Quarterly 30, no. 1 (2006): 36–46.
132 Julia T. Wood, Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender, and Culture, CengageBrain.com (2012).
146 Ragins and Cotton, “Marginal Mentoring.” See also Herminia Ibarra, “Personal Networks of Women and Minorities in Management: A Conceptual Framework,” Academy of Management Review 18 (1993): 56–87.
133 Myra Sadker and David Sadker, Failing at Fairness: How America’s Schools Cheat Girls (New York: Simon & Schuster: 2010). 134 Deborah Tannen, Talking from 9 to 5! How Women’s and Men’s Conversational Styles Affect Who Gets Heard, Who Gets Credit, and What Gets Done at Work (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994).
147 Ibid. See also Michael Szell and Stefan Thurner, “How Women Organize Social Networks Different from Men,” Scientific Reports 3 (2013). Sascha Peter and Sonja Drobnicˇ, “Women and Their Memberships: Gender Gap in Relational Dimension of Social Inequality,” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility (2012).
148 David A. Thomas and Robin J. Ely, “Making Differences Matter,” Harvard Business Review 74, no. 5 (1996): 79–90; Robin J. Ely and David A. Thomas, “Cultural Diversity at Work: The Effects of Diversity Perspectives on Work Group Processes and Outcomes,” Administrative Science Quarterly 46, no. 2 (2001): 229–273. 149 Monica C. Higgins and Kathy E. Kram, “Reconceptualizing Mentoring at Work: A Developmental Network Perspective,” Academy of Management Review 26 (2001): 264–288. 150 Vicki R. Whiting and Suzanne C. de Janasz, “Mentoring in the 21st Century: Using the Internet to Build Skills and Networks,” Journal of Management Education 28, no. 3 (2004): 275–293. 151 Becky Wai-Ling Packard, “Web-based Mentoring: Challenging Traditional Models to Increase Women’s Access,” Mentoring and Tutoring 11 (2003): 53–65; Jenny Headlam-Wells, Jane Craig, and Julian Gosland, “Encounters in Social Cyberspace: E-mentoring for Professional Women,” Women in Management Review 21 (2006): 483–499. 152 Other crowd-sourcing sites can amplify one’s resources by galvanizing large groups of people to donate small amounts of money to support a film, contribute to a campaign, or start a new enterprise. 153 Whitney Zahnd, “The Mentorship of Margaret Thatcher,” The New Agenda Blog, January 17, 2012, http://www. thenewagenda.net/2012/01/17/thementorship-of-margaret-thatcher/. Accessed September 6, 2013. 154 Charles Moore, “A Side of Margaret Thatcher We Have Never Seen,” The Telegraph, April 19, 2013; “Lady Thatcher,” The Telegraph, April 8, 2013. 155 Herminia Ibarra and Morten T. Hansen, “Are You a Collaborative Leader?” Harvard Business Review 89 (2011): 68–74. 156 Bill George, “Today’s Leadership Style: Collaborative,” Wall Street Journal, March 19, 2010. 157 James Andreoni and Lise Vesterlund, “Which is the Fair Sex? Gender Differences in Altruism,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 116 (2001): 293–312. 158 Sasha Galbraith, “The Debate Continues: Do You Prefer Superstar Individuals or Effective Teams?” Forbes, July 20, 2011. 159 Sasha Galbraith, “Leadership Lessons: Don’t Try to Be the Smartest Person in the Room,” Forbes, January 4, 2012. 160 Rosabeth Moss Kanter, “When a Thousand Flowers Bloom: Structural, Collective, and Social Conditions for Innovation in Organization,” in Entrepreneurship: The Social Science View, ed. Richard Swedberg (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 167–210. 161 Herminia Ibarra and Morten T. Hansen, “Are you a Collaborative Leader?” Harvard Business Review 89 (2011): 68–74.
162 Julie Schlosser, “Cubicles: The Great Mistake,” Fortune, March 22, 2006; Colin Beard and Ilfryn Price, “Mobility, Physical Space and Learning,” Management Learning (2011). 163 Schlosser, “Cubicles: The Great Mistake.” 164 Anita Williams Woolley, Christopher F. Chabris, Alex Pentland, Nada Hashmi, and Thomas W. Malone, “Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups,” Science 330, no. 686 (2010): 686–688. 165 Sheryl D. Brahnam, Thomas M. Margavio, Michael A. Hignite, Tonya B. Barrier, and Jerry M. Chin, “A Gender-Based Categorization for Conflict Resolution,” Journal of Management Development 24 (2005): 197–208. 166 Julia B. Bear and Anita Williams Woolley, “The Role of Gender in Team Collaboration and Performance,” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 36, no. 2 (2011): 146–153. 167 Volden, Wiseman, and Wittmer, “The Legislative Effectiveness of Women in Congress”; Beth Reingold, “Conflict and Cooperation: Legislative Strategies and Concepts of Power among Female and Male State Legislators,” Journal of Politics 58 (1996): 464–485. 168 Mary Beth Sheridan, “In Nuclear Negotiations, More Women at the Table for the U.S.,” The Washington Post, August 22, 2010. 169 Rebecca Burns, “Shirley Franklin is Not Tolerating Any Crap,” Atlanta, December 2003. 170 Croson and Gneezy, “Gender Differences in Preferences.”
174 Nancy M. Carter and Christine Silva, Pipeline’s Broken Promise, Catalyst (2010). 175 For many women who are negotiating, time and flexibility (so they are better able to integrate work with family responsibilities) are as important as salary and benefits that are the more traditional subjects of workplace negotiations. See Babcock and Laschever, Women Don’t Ask. 176 Emma Brockes, “Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg: ‘I want women to be paid more,’” The Guardian, March 15, 2013. 177 Hannah R. Bowles and Kathleen L. McGinn, “Claiming Authority: Negotiating Challenges for Women Leaders,” in The Psychology of Leadership: New Perspectives and Research, ed. David M. Messick and Roderick M. Kramer (New York: Psychology Press, 2005), 191–208. 178 Andreas Leibbrandt and John A. List, “Do Women Avoid Salary Negotiations? Evidence from a Large Scale Natural Field Experiment,” National Bureau of Economic Research, no. w18511 (2012). 179 Ibid. 180 Hannah Riley Bowles, Linda Babcock, and Kathleen L. McGinn, “Constraints and Triggers: Situational Mechanics of Gender in Negotiation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89 (2005): 951. 181 Ibid. See also Laurie A. Rudman and Julie E. Phelan, “Backlash Effects for Disconfirming Gender Stereotypes in Organizations,” Research in Organizational Behavior 28 (2008): 61–79.
185 Karen Parrish, “DOD Opens More Jobs, Assignments to Military Women,” US Department of Defense News Blog, February 2012, http://www.defense.gov/ news/newsarticle.aspx?id=67130. 186 Ronnie Janoff-Bulman and Mary Beth Wade, “Viewpoint: The Dilemma of Self-Advocacy for Women: Another Case of Blaming the Victim?” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 15 (1996): 143–152. 187 Mary E. Wade, “Women and Salary Negotiation: The Costs of Self-Advocacy,” Psychology of Women Quarterly 25 (2001): 65–76. 188 Hannah Riley Bowles, Linda Babcock, and Lei Lai, “Social Incentives for Gender Differences in the Propensity to Initiate Negotiations: Sometimes It Does Hurt to Ask,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 103, no. 1 (2007): 84–103. 189 Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA), Breaking Glass: Strategies for Tomorrow’s Leaders, December 2010. 190 Babcock and Laschever, Women Don’t Ask. 191 Claire Cain Miller, “In Google’s Inner Circle, a Falling Number of Women,” New York Times, August 22, 2012. 192 Jennifer L. Lawless and Richard Logan Fox, It Still Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). 193 Babcock and Laschever, Women Don’t Ask.
182 Mary Beth Sheridan, “In Nuclear Negotiations, More Women at the Table for U.S.,” The Washington Post, August 22, 2010.
194 Alice H. Eagly and Steven J. Karau, “Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice toward Female Leaders,” Psychological Review 109 (2002): 573.
172 Caliper, The Qualities That Distinguish Women Leaders (2005).
183 Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman, “Are Women Better Leaders than Men?” Harvard Business Review, March 15, 2012.
195 Cecilia L. Ridgeway, “Status in Groups: The Importance of Motivation,” American Sociological Review (1982): 76–88.
173 Linda Babcock and Sara Laschever, Women Don’t Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009).
184 Peter F. Drucker, “What Makes an Effective Executive?” in HBR 10 Must Reads on Leadership (Boston: Harvard Business Review Press, 2011).
171 Ronald M. Peters Jr. and Cindy Simon Rosenthal, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the New American Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).
196 Anna Quindlen, “Advice to My Younger Self,” in Lots of Candles, Plenty of Cake (New York: Random House, 2012).