WSJ Women in Leadership Report

There is quite a buzz on LinkedIn today (ODNetwork Group) about the WSJ's special section on Monday, April 11 about lack of progress of women into senior executive positions. McKinsey suggests that a greater focus on developmental programs and coaching be deployed. Some disagreed.

Below my post in response to an OD Network discussion of the topic:

Actually, there is a great deal of investment in developing women in leadership; however, the investments are frequently as wasteful as those of their male counterparts. In fact, a DDI Global Leadership Forecast 2008/2009 survey reported that for leadership development initiatives HR leaders responses indicated that “only 29 percent rated the quality as high or very high.” Yet, around $40 billion was spent that year in leadership development investments (ASTD). Moreover, there is an abundance of studies showing that about 50% to 75% of leaders are not effective. The bottom line -- organizations are just throwing development investments out there, with good intentions, hoping something will stick.

Next, to the points Barry made. I agree. Structures of opportunity, particularly the informal influencing factors and biases, as well as, the need to retain power within traditional comfort zones, tend to dead-end many women’s careers and upward mobility.

On that point our research shows that with CDR Leadership Risk (derailment) behaviors, while there is usually a similar level of risk level scored on average by men and women leaders, the perceptions and negative consequences for women are often far greater and rather unjustifiable. Here’s an example: In a 2008 Pew Survey, respondents said that women (85%) not men (5%) are the more emotional sex. However, this is contrary to our CDR Character and Risk data (both personality based assessments.) In a recent gender study* we conducted, men leaders scored an average of 54% and women leaders 50% on Adjustment…. On the Hyper-Moody risk, men scored 56% and women 62%. There were no significant gender differences and this does not support the severe 85% rating assigned to women on “emotionality” in the Pew survey.

A couple of notes on this: 1) how emotionality is expressed varies; 2) for women, emotionality is often confused with “Interpersonal Sensitivity” or nurturing/caring and relationship building capabilities; 3) and, emotionality of male leaders is often associated with anger, impatience, etc., and is considered within accepted norms – from a social “perception” standpoint.

In the aforementioned WSJ article, I found a quote that illustrates the differences between actual risk behaviors and perceptions: “I can speak the truth. But I don’t feel as comfortable having a tantrum at the office. There are many men, particularly in financial services, who can scream, shout, throw things. Nobody blinks an eye.” Sallie Krawcheck, President Global Wealth & Investment Management, Bank of America, Wall Street Journal, 4/11/11, pg. R10

Great subject! Thanks for the discussion.
Nancy

*Study: “Risk Factors that Impact Women in Leadership”, data from 26 companies, men leaders n=120; women leaders n=110., 2008, CDR Assessment Group, Inc., Tulsa, OK.

Executive Development Retreat News

CDR Hosts Holistic Executive Development Retreat Zoëtry, a Wellness & Spa Resort in Mexico

Tulsa, OK (PRWEB) February 11, 2011

CDR Executive Development Retreat at Riviera Maya Resort Announced

We are pleased to announce the exclusive:

CDR Executive Development Retreat on July 7 -12, 2011 at

Zoëtry Paraiso de la Bonita, a Wellness & Spa Resort in Mexico


This CDR Executive Development Retreat is designed for those executives who are ready to rev up their personal energy, refocus, and renew their performance edge.

The Retreat host, global executive assessment and development firm, CDR Assessment Group, Inc., combines custom curriculum design and just the right environment to maximize each executive’s personal learning experience. Zoëtry is a luxurious all-inclusive boutique resort set on 14 acres perfectly situated along the Riviera Maya. It has a private beach and is just 20 minutes from Cancun’s International Airport.

This exclusive Retreat offers a holistic approach to executive development including in-depth assessment, executive coaching, strategic authentic leadership workshops, action planning, fitness or a health risk consultation, and a memorable spa experience. Then, of course, participants and their guests will find much more to do to rejuvenate at Zoëtry.

Getting started is easy – executives register and then simply take the CDR 3-D suite online and have their initial executive coaching session by telephone. Then, it’s off to the Retreat for a mix of half day workshops, one-to-one coaching, and time for to revitalize, refresh and reenergize.

Do not mistake this Retreat as unchallenging or light, for the CDR 3-D Suite and our coaches cut to the chase with straightforward, hard hitting and useful insights to fast forward the development process. At the first coaching session, each CDR executive coach will get to the root causes of their client executive’s performance behaviors, talents, skills, motivational needs, and risk factors. We respect the value of our clients’ time and our coaching approach is direct, unvarnished and productive.

To access more the Retreat brochure, FAQs and the Registration form, please go to: http://www.cdrassessmentgroup.com/retreat.php

Because of the personalized attention given to each executive, space is limited. The deposit deadline is March 4, 2011 so be sure to respond promptly to secure your enrollment.

• To learn more about registration, please contact: Rebekah Garrett at 918-488-0722 or email: rgarrett@cdrassessmentgroup.com
• For resort information and travel questions, please contact Penny Sheldon Travel at 888-336-8133 or email at: travelagent@cableone.net

Too Much Recognition?

Can a leader give too much recognition?

Yes -- too much or the wrong type of recognition and attempts at positive reinforcement can backfire. Showing sincerity and making sure that the effort is worthy is essential. Next, it is imperative to know how individuals want to be rewarded most. What may be a reward or great recognition for one person, may be an aversion or distasteful experience for another.

We measure ten key "Driver & Rewards Needs". One of these is "Fame & Feedback" and I have two quick stories that depicts the impact of rewards backfiring. We had a client who rewarded a nursing manager as the "leader of the year" and picked her up in a limo, celebrated at a big party-like event in the parking lot with all employees present, and she was the honoree. Well, she scored under 5% (on a scale of up to 100%) on her need for Fame & Feedback. She told me that if they ever did anything like that again that she would resign immediately. She was mortified. She said it was the worst day of her life.

At a university, one director who I had coached who herself had a low score on Fame & Feedback, rewarded a new employee with a balloon bouquet as thanks for bringing in a new corporate client. She was trying to acknowledge that others frequently have a higher need for recognition than she had so her intent was admirable. Well, with this gentleman, she was wrong. She sent the bouquet without having his data -- later to find out that his score on Fame & Feedback was even lower than hers. (Of course we laughed after that story but this did re-affirm the point.)

Interestingly, with this same scale when people have high scores (needs), we have coached people who have left jobs because they didn't get sufficient thanks or appreciation for their contributions. They didn't get the respect or visibility they so needed. (Even though it doesn’t cost the business a cent.)

FYI, the other Drivers & Reward facets we measure include: Business & Finance (money), Artistic Endeavors, Companionship & Affiliation, Amusement & Hedonism, Humanitarian Efforts, Power & Competition, Scientific Reasoning, and Safety & Security. So the question is on all of these for each person: is it a driver, non-interest or aversion or unimportant to you? Managers typically err by rewarding what they personally value most which may or may not match what the employee really wants and needs. While the intention may be sincere, rewards can and do backfire.

Pay ≠ Motivation

I was once asked if improving motivation increases productivity. Which then prompted a series of questions: Can we improve motivation? And, is there a level at which motivation is maxed out? Should we try to find each employee's threshold?

In reality, we do not seek to "improve" motivation, but rather to create innovative compensation systems that naturally tap into the ways that people like to be rewarded. Which in turn will more likely lead to improved satisfaction.

An individual's interest/reward profile is only one piece of the performance puzzle--others include characteristics such as diligence, ambition, and role-fit. However, assessing what drives a person and how they like to be rewarded provides a framework for task assignment and incentives that maximize team member interests.

Sure, financial incentives are the traditional reason for being employed. However, these alone will not increase productivity and may even decrease it over time.

Stepping back for a moment, one way to conceptualize the relevance of personality to work is to classify jobs by occupational type and then consider the personality requirements and performance criteria relevant to that occupational type.

Top vocational psychologist John Holland's occupational choice model established a general classification system for personality styles. These styles are classified into six categories based on patterns of interests and are linked to a classification structure that organizes occupations according to similar traits.

If we take two vocational types and compare them, we can elucidate how rewards systems can naturally vary. First, let's work under the assumption that two individuals are incented equally by the payroll. Bill is V.P. of Audits; Jack is V.P. of Sales. Picturing these two men sitting across the table from each other, we can imagine that they would approach their work quite differently. Bill is likely more organized, task-focused and slightly introverted. Jack is likely a maverick who switches gears easily, people-focused, and extraverted.

Thus, if we paid Jack significantly more money to be an auditor, would he be more productive? And vice-versa with Bill? Not necessarily. Because, again, there are many facets at play in a person's performance arc.

So, what would these two guys find to be motivating? A job and environment they find pleasing with an incentive system that rewards them in ways that matter to them. Which for Bill might include opportunities to participate in sessions on financial planning, college funding and the like, the latest state of the art software, and/or a private work space where he can bunker down and get things done. Alternatively, Jack might really prefer to be rewarded with public limelight for meeting his goals, with extra days off, and/or opportunites to develop creative strategies with the marketing team.

It is important to understand that managers have much greater flexibility and ability in this area than they often believe. When a person’s compelling individualized needs are being met, it is more likely that positive performance will result. Assuming that other business needs and behavior trends are appropriately tended to, a culture and reward system that serves to "actually reward" versus "hope to reward" will lead to a happier and more loyal work group. And a happier and more loyal work group will most assuredly produce.

~Kim

Coaches' Certification Workshop in St. Louis

ANNOUNCING:
Executive Coaching Certification Workshop
to use the
CDR 3-Dimensional Assessment Suite®
March 11 & 12, 2010, St. Louis, MO

· Are you ready to fast forward leader development by shaving a year or two off of the normal cycle time?

· Would you find it helpful to move beyond the information that 360s offer by learning why behaviors manifest the ways that they do? (i.e, to the root cause of behaviors)

· Would tools that can be used for a wide range of applications such as: leader coaching, strategic team development, staffing decisions, succession planning, be of value to you?

· Are you willing to provide your clients with candid, accurate insights that they have not heard before? (i.e, this takes a good mix of courage & compassion.)

· Do you want to help leaders identify their authentic talent and vulnerabilities so that they can steer their developmental actions accordingly?

If you answered YES to all or most of the questions above, then you should consider enrollment in this exceptional learning process for internal and external coaches.

For more information, go to:

http://www.cdrassessmentgroup.com/PDFs/Coaches%20Workshop%20St.%20Louis%202010.pdf

Three Coaching Traps and the Egotist Executive

Executive coaches can toss out their normal play book when taking on the Egotist executive client In fact, effectively and productively coaching the ardent Egotist is a steep challenge that many executive coaches are ill prepared to tackle. There are three distinct traps coaches may get caught in while working with the Egotist. These traps can hinder, or even ruin, the coaching relationship and progress.

The first trap to be wary of is that while good news sells, it is not enough. While developing and leveraging a leader’s best strengths and talent is a pivotal part of the executive coaching process in many instances, focusing predominately on strong suits alone with the Egotist executive can be counterproductive.

The second executive coaching trap is that the inherent nature of the Egotist is to reject negative feedback. Candid criticism, and anything less than glowing reviews, is not something that Egotists accept easily. Their sense of being uniquely superior and gifted is naturally at odds with these critiques. The CDR Risk Assessment describes that the Egotist leader

“is self-centered, has a sense of entitlement, takes credit for others' accomplishments, is viewed as a hard-nosed competitor, has a sense of superiority, and expects to be looked up to.”

The third problematic trap is the lack of essential baseline data collection early in the executive coaching process. When working with limited data, executives are provided only partial, potentially skewed, and superficial findings.

Clever and manipulative Egotists are adept at dismissing easy-to-mold, incomplete data. 360 feedback is not enough. It is important to have personality characteristics, risk and motivational data to get a clear reading on why behaviors manifest they ways that they do. Then, along with 360 feedback, there is no wiggle room for the Egotist.