LeadingWomen.biz Unleashed

Have Followers ≠ Leader

Watching the fearful and hate-filled mobs accosting politicians in town hall meetings I think it's time we all pause and reflect on what it means to be a leader. People in positions of leadership, by virtue of their ability to touch the lives of thousands or millions, have the awesome responsibility to act as leaders. You see holding the position of leadership and being a leader are not the same thing.

Conventional wisdom in America leads people astray when it comes to understanding leadership - at least when it comes to a prescriptive definition of leadership. Useless definitions abound. "A leader is someone who has followers." Well, unless you're comfortable being lumped in with Hitler or Osama Bin Laden, that definition is useless.

"A leader is someone who takes you where you wouldn't go by yourself" might work if you aspire to be an executive who runs your company into the ground or like Jimmy Jones who ran his people into mass suicide.

"A leader is action, not title." could be helpful if your role model is anyone who is moving in any direction - whether or not it's constructive. I can think of a few rabble rousing media types as reasons why to not use that definition.

As a developer of managers and executives in organizations, I needed a definition of leadership. Not able to find one that met 3 key criteria, I developed one. "Leadership is using the greatness in you to achieve and sustain extraordinary outcomes by engaging the greatness in others." This definition works because it is prescriptive (rules out Hitler), universal (applies to anyone, anywhere, at any level) and ubiquitous (applies across arenas - politics, business, social movements).

This definition separates the truly great political leader from someone who has followers. History has repeatedly proven that you can gather a host of followers and achieve some outcome by tapping the worst in people - their fear, greed, hatred, bigotry, racism, violence, anti-semitism (think Hitler, Osama bin Laden, Pol Pot.) They're excluded from this definition.

Truly great leaders engage the greatness in her/his followers. They engage hope, compassion, understanding, creativity, love, egalitarianism, tolerance, non-violence and curiosity. (Think Gandhi, Wangari Maathai, Martin Luther King)

So, use the definition, look around and ask yourself, who simply has followers and who are today's leaders?

Susan
Susan L. Colantuono, CEO and Founder
Leading Women
author No Ceiling, No Walls (December 2009)

Find me here, too:
Leading Women Blog
Twitter
PINK Magazine

About Leading Women
Leading Women is recognized for our singular and innovative focus on developing women leaders in organizations. Leading Women inspires, powers and honors the success of the women leaders through a variety of leadership programs, strategic networking events and other resources designed to provide what women need to succeed from career-start to C-suite and corporate boards.  For more information on events, membership or to become a sponsor, visit our website at www.LeadingWomen.biz or call 401-789-0441.

Anti-Choice = Anti Women?

Reading Meg's post over at BuzzFlash (Don't Kid Yourself; the Murder of Dr. George Tiller is Part of the War Against Women) brought me back to the choir loft at Our Lady of Fatima Church. I was no more than 16 and Father Weber (the one who replaced our pedophile) was talking about the "sin" of abortion.

From somewhere I drew the strength to ask, "Even if it is known that the mother will die, maybe even leaving other children behind, abortion is wrong?" Of course, he answered, "yes". And that's when I knew, in no uncertain terms, that - Mary aside - the church was anti-woman.

Random related thoughts:

• Many of the anti-choice groups are also staunchly anti-birth control.
• Unrestricted access to birth control is the main reason why women are able to plan families and build careers.
• Anti-choice legislation is a wedge for the Catholic (and other) churchs') anti-birth control agendas. This is why the anti-choice author who joined with a pro-choice author to write a book on the common ground of reducing unwanted pregnancy was vilified by anti-choice groups. Wish I could remember the title and the authors names. I heard them interviewed on NPR a while ago.
• 90% of counties in America have no safe place for a woman to have an abortion.
• I heard someone say recently, we're not in a way of Christians against Muslims, we're in a war of moderates against fundamentalists/extremists. My observation is that the one thing all fundamentalists/extremists have in common is the degradation of women's position in society.
• Without a permanent majority of feminist men and women in positions of legislative power we are, at any given time, only one law away from equal rights.
• Anti-choice violence is absolutely terrorism.

I hope there is a generation of young women and men who are willing to do battle again for all I fought for 40 years ago.

Pro-Women Happy Dance

I am so doing a "happy dance" about the Obama administration's stance on choice and overall attitudes toward women. Rolling back the anti-choice actions of Bush-co and advancing the rights to sue over wage discrimination. PHEW!

Great article on the pro-choice legislative environment here.

Lead On!
Susan

Endorsing Obama/Biden

Last week, a good friend asked me why I was so adamantly against Governor Palin. I explained to him that she did not meet my definition of a leader...and the past week throws Senator McCain in the same category. Here's why. When I began to teach about leadership I knew 3 things.

1. First, that leadership can manifest at every level from novice to expert, from individual contributor to CEO, from citizen to President.
2. Second, that a position does not a leader make - many people in positions of leadership do not act (and can not act) as leaders.
3. Third, that evidence of leadership exists in all realms of life.

I searched for a definition that would give life to this knowledge - and one that would be useful. A definition that people could use to set their leadership compass at the start of any given day and assess their leadership actions at the end of any given day. I couldn't find a definition that met these criteria, so I created this one.

"Leadership is using the greatness in you to achieve and
sustain extraordinary outcomes by engaging the greatness in others."
Susan L. Colantuono

If we consider the running of the two presidential campaigns as relevant evidence of outcomes, the Obama/Biden campaign has been the best run. If we look at who is acting from personal greatness, the Obama/Biden campaign has been - consider his demeanor on stage with McCain at the debates.

But, I want to get to the crux of my strongest reasons for endorsing greatnessBarack Obama and Joe Biden. My definition reads "...by engaging the greatness in others" because I wanted a prescriptive definition of leadership - one that would rule-out people like Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot and Osama Bin Laden - who collect followers by connecting with their fear, hatred, anger, racism, anti-semitism, elitism. I wanted a definition that would rule-in people like Mother Theresa, Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi who engaged hope, unity, creativity, faith and the best in their followers .

This past week, the McCain/Palin ticket has acted more like Hitler, Pol Pot and Osama Bin Laden in its attempt to rile the base with anger, hatred, division and fear. In contrast Barack Obama and Joe Biden have consistently engaged their followers with messages of unity, compassion, respect for differences and hope. For example, in the middle of a week of baseless attacks against and slimey lies about him, Barack (who consistently says that McCain is a good man with whom he disagrees) said this,
 

"I ask you to believe, to believe in yourselves, believe in each other. If we believe we cannot fail."

At this most difficult period in generations, America needs leadership. In my considered opinion, the leadership we need will best come from Barack Obama and Joe Biden. They will continue to marshal our belief in ourselves and each other and under their leadership America will not fail.

The Republican Ticket from a Leadership Perspective

My analysis of the Republican ticket stems from over 30 years experience studying executives and leadership, teaching leadership and working with leaders of organizations ranging from F100 to small not-for-profits – and especially on women’s issues.

As a presidential candidate, John McCain has been chosen by the people of his party. His choice of a Vice Presidential candidate and his campaign strategy, however, are direct  statements about his capacity for and style of leadership.

Here’s what John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin to be -as he puts it - his "soul mate" and “partner” communicates about his leadership ability.

1. His choice is akin to the Fortune 1 CEO (think WalMart) selecting to be Chief Operating Officer a district manager with 2 years experience. Republican spin-masters call his move “bold” – if he were a CEO, any impartial director would call it reckless. It shows a monumental lack of executive judgment.
2. McCain’s choice also demonstrates a lack of judgment in choosing advisors. No board of directors of a major corporation would ever approve the addition of such an unqualified person into the candidate pool for the COO position.
3. This choice is an appalling example of tokenism – there is no dimension on which Palin could be considered the “best qualified” person for the job. Compassion and principles (two commendable qualities highlighted when he introduced Palin) do not a vice president make.
4. To accept and make the argument that 2 years experience as governor of a meagerly populated state equates to executive experience, demonstrates a lack of understanding of what is required to be executive-in-chief of the most powerful nation on earth.
5. The most successful executives intentionally surround themselves with people brighter and with proven skills in their areas of weakness. His choice, again, shows a lack of executive intelligence.
6. Sometimes in history, circumstances have called unprepared persons to step into positions of leadership. In this case, it's McCain who chose a poorly qualified person to stand one heartbeat from the presidency. 
7. Leaders need a vision for change. The Republicans' is to reform Washington (a noble vision given  the Republicans who made a travesty of merit-based appointments at the Justice department and accounted for numerous ethics scandals in the last 8 years). But when it comes to the disastrous policies that have rocked the U.S. economy , driven us to increasing dependence on oil, resulted in billions being spent in Iraq, our loss of stature in the world - they advocate for more of the same. AND on issues that matter specifically to women, McCain's "vision" is among the worst in the Senate (see prior post).
8. I define leadership as "...using the greatness in you to achieve and sustain extraordinary outcomes by engaging the greatness in others." McCain's vision for extraordinary outcomes is sadly missing as is any evidence that he is engaging greatness. Rather, his campaign and supporters are engaging hatred, contempt, superiority, lies, fear and racism.
9. Authentic leadership calls for behavior aligned with words and actions guided by a moral compass. This past week is evidence enough that McCain himself has lied, has flip-flopped on issues and has condoned a campaign strategy that even the main stream media has had to call out for falsehoods.

As one who has watched women succeed and fail in corporate America, here’s what her acceptance tells me about Sarah Palin. She is right to have been, as she said, “honored and privileged to make the list”. But, she’s not ready to be vice president, she’s not qualified and she should have had the judgment to decline. Instead, like many women set up to fail, she let flattery at being chosen outweigh her judgment. Her claim that she didn't even blink, shows either incredible lack of intelligence or hubris (or both) – neither commendable leadership qualities. As a matter of fact, in Good to Great (Jim Collins' study of the transformation of companies from good performance to great performance) he finds that the executives were characterized by personal humility.

As a lifelong advocate for women’s rights, here’s what McCain’s choice of a VP candidate tells me about his views on women:
1. This choice, like his voting record on women’s issues (see prior post), demonstrates a contempt for women. In essence he’s saying that women are interchangeable and that women are stupid enough to see Palin and her stand on women’s issues as a stand-in for Hillary.
2. This choice, like McCain’s voting record on women’s issues, demonstrates his lack of understanding of women.
3. This choice and his repeated use of the words "soul mate" and “partner” rather than “running mate” suggests the idea of a “trophy candidate”.

Our Right - and Obligation - to Vote

Last night Hillary Clinton spoke on the anniversary of women's right to vote. After her speech, I wrote to my cousin "she made me laugh, she made me cry, she made me proud." She also brought front and center the choices that women have in this year's election.

In 2000 and 2004 I asked friends who planned to vote for Bush, "how can you, as a woman, support a Republican?" My concerns over the  arch-conservatives' impact on women have more than been fulfilled. Our freedoms have eroded and economic policies have had a disproportionate adverse effect on women.

The 2008 election brings our choices front and center once again. To me a woman supporting John McCain is like a hen supporting Frank Perdue. Planned Parenthood lays out the top 10 reasons why here:

1. John McCain opposes equal pay legislation, saying it wouldn't do "anything to help the rights of women."
2. John McCain opposes requiring health care plans to cover prescription birth control.
3. John McCain opposes comprehensive medically accurate sex education.
4. John McCain opposes common sense funding to prevent unintended and teen pregnancies.
5. John McCain opposes funding for public education about emergency contraception.
6. John McCain opposes restoring family planning services for low-income women.
7. John McCain opposes Roe v. Wade and says it should be overturned.
8. John McCain wants to nominate Supreme Court justices who are "clones" of conservative Justices Alito and Roberts.
9. When asked whether contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV, John McCain said he was "stumped."
10. In his 25 years in Washington, D.C., John McCain has voted against women's reproductive rights and privacy 125 times.

You can check their facts at the Planned Parenthood Action fund's Web site.

Several years ago, a study by the Federal Reserve Bank found an incontrovertible correlation between women's reproductive rights and women's economic advancement.  Our right to control our reproductive lives has been under assault for the past 8 years and will continue to be should McCain be elected.

Thanks to the women who have come before us, we have the right to vote. When considering my obligation to vote, although I wish I could vote for a woman in this year's presidential election, I will not turn my back on women's issues and vote for McCain. I will be voting for Obama/Biden '08.

Lead On!
Susan 

Because I am relentless in keeping the Leading Women website apolitical and non-partisan, I appreciate the opportunity to voice my political views here on my blog.

Leadership and Powerful Women

     Kudos  to Fortune magazine on the BEST ever 50 Most Powerful Women issue (October 15, 2007), to Pattie Sellers and her team, to the women on the list and all the organizations that developed and promoted them.

On that last point, I couldn't help but notice the lack of overlap between Fortune's Best Companies for Leaders (October 1, 2007) and the organizations represented by the 50 Most Powerful. Only GE, IBM and Proctor and Gamble made both lists.

At Leading Women, our research has identified deep flaws in traditional leadership development programs. Many of these programs, rooted in research done on executives in the late 70s and early 80s,  reinforce a paradigm of leadership that is  outdated, incomplete and overly-focused on skills at which women tend to excel.

If the cited companies were truly "top companies for leaders", they would surely have more women at the top than they do. Instead, by basing programs trailing indicators (competencies held by white men who succeeded in the distant or recent past) and without the TRUE meritocracies that you defined as the basis for women's high percentages in leadership at Dupont, Honeywell and Reynolds ('06), they tend to perpetuate the status quo.

Next year, we invite Fortune put on its "gender lens" as it evaluates the "top companies for leaders" AND we look forward to another excellent issue on the Most Powerful Women.

Lead on!
Susan

50 Powerful Women...and White Men Behaving Badly

Every year I look forward to Fortune Magazine's issue featuring the 50 most powerful women in America and the world. This year was a landmark year - with 10 of the 50 holding CEO positions. The most interesting to me, and the most powerful, is PepsiCo's brand new CEO (as of 10/11), Indra Nooyi (who also topped Forbes list).

In August, when her appointment was announced, I read a story from DaijiWorld.com that covered her career highlights (President and CFO at Pepsi, acquisition of Tropicana, positions on several boards, WSJ 50 to Watch in 2005 among others). I was also struck by two other points made in the article:

"She attributes much of her success to her upbringing in India. 'Being a woman, being foreign-born, you've got to be smarter than anyone else,' says Nooyi, who honors her heritage by often attending PepsiCo events wearing a sari."

Also of note, after the profiles of the 100 featured women, was an article on our dismal progress into top positions and three companies who have high concentrations of women at the top. How did they get that way? All three are "fanatical" about measurement of outcomes (sound familiar??). They use "empirical standards, clear goals and frequent reviews to identify and reward high performers" regardless of gender. The three: Reynolds, DuPont and Honeywell.

And in my bizarre way of viewing the world, I happened to note that in 5 of approximately 7 other articles that prominently featured white men, they were behaving badly. Among the tally: fraud, ethically questionable (possibly illegal) activity, short sightedness and in one case "bet-the-franchise, corporate brinksmanship, miscalculation and overreaching". Oh for more women in powerful positions!

To get a look at the 50 Most Powerful, follow the link from:
www.leadingwomen.biz/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=2

Lead on!
Susan
Susan Colantuono, CEO and Founder
Leading Women

Leader as Explorer

It’s the first Autumn day with wind blowing from the North. Overhead, 6 Canada Geese are flying toward the pond. I think about the journey they are about to undertake and it reminds me of a book I read recently about Magellan’s voyage around the world.

Magellan had among his crew those who wanted to suborn his authority and his voyage, those who had to be coerced into doing what had to be done, those who systematically went about their work and those who were inspired by his vision and loyal to his character – sound like those on your team? Well, that’s for a future topic. This morning I am focused on the concept of exploration – it is, after all, October, the month when some among us honor Columbus’ voyage to America and when birds crowd the flyways southward.

Thinking about voyages makes me want to search for books about women explorers and this reminds me of NPR’s recent coverage of the awarding of the Nobel prize in Chemistry to biologist Roger Kornberg whose work on the role of RNA in cell communication could transform treatments for cancer, heart disease and various inflammatory diseases. Kornberg’s father had previously won a Nobel prize and the reporter asked during the story if there were other father/son pairs who had won.

“What about mother/daughter pairs?” I thought. Sure enough the first parent/child pair mentioned by the person being interviewed was Marie Curie and her daughter Irene Joliot-Curie* who explored the science of radioactivity.

Exploration. The word has its roots in the Latin word explorare, meaning to search out or investigate. In many ways, exploration is at the root of the leader’s work. If leadership is about achieving and sustaining extraordinary outcomes, the leader’s work must be about innovation and change. Before innovation or change comes exploration. Explorers ask questions like: why?, would it be possible?, why not? and what would happen if? In business, after the “new idea”, exploration often includes ROI or benefits-and-risk assessment.

What explorations are you on as a leader? If you have anything to do with healthcare, you should be paying attention to Kornberg’s work on RNA. No matter what your leadership realm, you should be focused on cutting edge technologies – what they mean for your business, your industry, your customers and your suppliers. No matter your leadership realm, you should be focused on what your competitors are doing, innovations they are bringing in and those of your customers and suppliers.

What do you read on a daily or weekly basis? If it’s only women’s magazines, beware! Someone around you is reading trade journals, strategically thinking about the organizational implications of new stories, or networking with others in the industry to discover what innovations might propel your company to a new level of performance. When it comes time for the promotion, who will your boss choose?

Leader as explorer. I hope you find the concept compelling. Who knows where it will lead you in your careeer. Overhead a flock of geese leave the pond transforming from chaos into a perfect flying V and heading for destinations far away.

*to see all the women Nobel Prize winners, go here: http://almaz.com/nobel/women.html

Getting (Financially) Even

The cover says it all.

"Over her working lifetime, a woman will lose between $700,000 and $2 million. DON'T LET IT HAPPEN TO YOU."

Getting Even: Why Women Don't Get Paid Like Men - and What to Do About It by Evelyn Murphy

I always talk about why it's important for women leaders to speak in the language of outcomes, but until I read Evelyn Murphy's book, I never thought of the outcome of the daily insults and discrimination that women in organizations face. The outcome is LESS EARNING POWER!

Decades after the women's movement, women working full-time still earn only 77cents for every full-time male dollar. Why? Murphy details 4 dynamics that we all have experienced:
- Plain Old Discrimination
- Wage Discrimination by Sexual Harassment
- Women's Work
- Everyday Discrimination: "Working While Female"

These dynamics not only make the path to leadership difficult for women, they also have serious financial consequences that Murphy makes blatantly clear.

Beyond the "why", Murphy explains what we can do to close the gap:
- Women providing pressure from the inside-up.
- CEOs working from the top down.
- Everyone working from the outside-in

To get involved, Murphy advocates the strategy of forming Wage Groups - visit the Leading Women e-Wage Group. http://leadingwomen.biz/forumviewtopic.cfm?forumnbr=3891&topicnbr=7702