13

Coaching Women

Although much has changed since publication of the first edition of this book in 2001, there are still four good reasons to consider the coaching of women as a special case. It must be stated at the onset of a chapter such as this that generalizing and stereotyping are dangerous—and as likely as not to be wrong in an individual case. There is no standard woman or typical man. There are men who think more like women and women who think more like men. Men and women who neatly fit the stereotypes are actually quite rare, and few, if any of us, are prototypes of our gender. Although there is serious risk of stereotyping in such a discussion, the conversation is worth having, as an appreciation of gender has potential to produce more good than harm. It seems indisputable that many, if not most, men are significantly different (in important ways) from many, if not most, women. Here is one map useful to understand gender differences:

• We are all alike because we are all human. We have that in common.
• We are all unique. There is no one on the planet who is just like you.
• We all possess some characteristics that are associated with our gender.

These three things are simultaneously true.

The first reason for a coaching-women chapter is that gender-based differences between men and women are often real and significant. Although this observation can be discomforting, it is undeniable. Recent observations from neurobiology point to brain differences between men and women (Gurian & Annis, 2008), and differential social enculturation continues to be a powerful force.

Second, women and men do not fare the same way in the workplace. Organizations undeniably perceive and treat men and women differently. There are structural, cultural, social, intra- and interpersonal explanations for this, and coaches can be instrumental in helping men, women, and organizations evolve.

Third, there are clear, plausible, empirical data demonstrating that companies with greater gender diversity perform better; specifically that companies with three or more women in top leadership positions have better return on investment (ROI), better earnings (EBIT), and greater stock price growth (Desvaux, Devillard-Hoellinger, & Baumgarten, 2007). Female executives represent an untapped asset and potential competitive advantage.

Fourth, women do not have the same access to informal sources of mentoring at work. Coaches can help fill this gap. Women are more likely to welcome the help of a coach, as men tend to be notorious help-rejecters. Men may even see the acceptance of help as a sign of weakness, plus they often have access to important informal mentors, and they know it. Women are far more likely to grasp the value of a coach—someone outside of the organization who knows the ropes, someone who can make observations, give clear feedback, and someone who will listen to things that cannot always be spoken in public.

The problems of gender are not new. Thoughtful insights have been available in the literature for years if not centuries. Take, for example, the work of Simone de Beauvoir (1952). She wrote half a century ago about the role confusion that women experience when they enter the workforce. These confusions are shifting, and as culture evolves, gender relations evolve. But these difficulties cannot be ignored, and it is unwise to pretend that the differences between men and women are insignificant.

This chapter is divided into three sections: (1) what coaches need to learn to effectively coach women; (2) ways coaches can enhance the careers and effectiveness of women; and (3) what organizations can do to take greater advantage of female potential.

What Coaches Need to Know

Regarding the Workplace

To start, coaches need to understand the current situation of women in the workplace, especially regarding women in leadership. Women have arrived in all arenas of the workplace, and they are not about to go back home as they did after World War II. There are clear signs that women are major players in the current economy, and although the pipeline to the top of large corporations is 20 years long, a few women have already made their way into powerful leadership positions. But women have simply not made their way into these higher leadership positions in organizations at statistically expectable levels. The glass ceiling is real. Women are entering higher education at rates equal to or greater than men. Females outnumber males at American medical schools and the same is nearly true at traditionally male dental schools. This trend does not seem to be true for business schools, where females represent less than 35% of recent MBA graduates (Alsop, 2007). Data from a 2009 Catalyst census indicates the following:

• Women represent 46% of the American work force. This number has been stable for the past decade.
• The percentage of women in managerial and professional positions in the American workforce increased steadily until about 1999 when it leveled off at 50%.
• The percentage of corporate officer positions held by women in Fortune 500 companies increased steadily until about 2002 when it leveled off at about 15%.
• The percentage of corporate board positions held by women in Fortune 500 companies increased steadily until about 2003 when it leveled off at about 14%.
• Women now represent just 6% of Fortune 500 top earners and 3% of CEOs.

It appears that the rise of women to the top of American corporations has stagnated or even declined. There is also evidence at all levels that women are still paid less than men for the same work and are promoted more slowly, even when competing explanatory factors are held constant (Eagly & Carli, 2007).

In addition to the glass ceiling, there are also “glass walls” in business organizations. Women still tend to be clustered in a small number of areas including human resources and marketing, the “pink collar” jobs where they are occupationally segregated. Although this is certainly changing, not as many women tend to make it into information technology (IT) or operations, which are still typically male dominated. The reasons are complex, and the choices and behavior of male managers and female workers both contribute to the problem, as does the workplace culture.

A Labyrinth of Challenges

Eagly and Carli (2007) make the point that the glass ceiling metaphor is too simple, too discouraging, and that it wrongly implies that women do well until they reach a certain limiting level, high in the organization. Instead, they point out that limitations are consistent throughout the workplace and the absence of women at the highest levels represents an accumulation of restricting forces throughout a woman’s career. These forces include lingering gender prejudices, resistance to female leadership, differential male and female responses to the demands of family, and differences in the ways that men and women participate in work activities that take place outside of the office time and setting.

Male-Centric Culture

Business organizations are typically male led, and they are dominated by masculine culture and assumptions. Men invented the current rules. Even the office furniture is built for men (Evans, 2000, p. 128), as is the decor. American corporations tend to reward a competitive approach to things, a direct, in-your-face mentality and communication style that puts measurable performance and self-promotion ahead of relationships. Here’s a Wall Street Journal headline from August 8, 2000, that exemplifies this attitude: “Competitive Drive: Palm Puts Up Its Fists as Microsoft Attacks Hand-Held PC Market.” It is widely prevalent in the business milieu.

Metaphors of war are common in the current competitive American business environment. Men play fighting games as children. They keep score, and there are clear winners and losers. The object of these games is to beat the other team or person, and then go on to the next game and do it again. Girls often play games for very different reasons: to develop, study, and cement relationships, or to nurture all involved. After years of athletic coaching, Kathleen DeBoer (2004, p. 34) came to the conclusion that men and women typically compete quite differently: “Men struggle first, expecting acceptance only after they perform. Females seek acceptance before they will commit to struggle.” Felice Schwartz observed that “women who compete like men are considered unfeminine. Women who emphasize family are considered uncommitted” (1989, p. 67).

Aggressive verbal behavior is rewarded in male culture, and the stress is modulated with jokes about sports or sex or the ineptness of a colleague. The metaphors are often sports based, and it is sometimes difficult to understand them if you do not know baseball or football (touch base, hit a home run, or I think we should punt are three of a thousand such examples). Team building is done on the golf course or at sporting events, and a season ticket is a legitimate business expense in the eyes of the IRS. Eagly and Carli (2007) report about an executive retreat at Sam Walton’s ranch that included quail hunting and visits to strip clubs and Hooters. Many women love baseball and some enjoy quail hunting, but going to strip clubs and Hooters to succeed in your career?

Women are often left out of the formal and informal communication loops in the male organization. This is often an inadvertent or structural omission, and women are not always aware that it is happening. Sometimes women spend too much time diligently attending to the details of a project rather than attending meetings that do not appear to be important. To them, it does not seem like much gets done at such meetings. Men, on the other hand, attend those meetings to stay connected with key players, stay visible and promote their interests, and develop trusting relationships. This is part of the game.

These days, women are increasingly involved with team sports at a young age. But it is less natural for women to think and behave in these typically “male ways” to compete, and there is an adaptation or accommodation required to succeed in male-led organizations. When women interact in an all-female setting, the topics and behavior patterns are typically quite different. DeBoer (2004) insists that women compete as hard as or harder than men. They just do it differently, and this is not well understood by men. It takes extra energy for many women to succeed in a male culture. Some women resent this adaptation and would rather not have to bother with it in order to succeed. It represents an additional layer of barriers.

There is still an “anytime, anywhere” mentality in many work settings. People desiring the best and most challenging assignments are expected to be willing to put in unlimited time and to travel as much and as often as necessary. Any sign of reluctance is subtly or overtly punished. This attitude is not always necessary or productive, and it probably hurts women more than men.

Prejudice, Stereotypes, and Misconceptions

Women face complex and powerful stereotypes in the business world, including these described by Reardon (1995, p. 77):

• Women are not sufficiently committed to their work and career. They have conflicted motives (work vs. home) and are likely to leave the job to raise a family.
• Women do not work well with other women.
• Women generally lack sports experience, so they cannot be expected to understand teamwork.
• Women do not make compelling leaders.
• Women are too emotional (and insufficiently rational).
• Assertive women are difficult and demanding.
• Women are not good at technical matters.
• Men resent female bosses.
• Women lack the killer instinct necessary for a successful business in a competitive climate.

Other recent speculations in the literature include the notion that women are not as ambitious as men (Fels, 2004), and that women lack the capacity to provide corporate vision (Ibarra & Obodaru, 2009). There’s still a widespread perception that women cannot do math or lack interest in technology. Although these stereotypes are not often openly discussed or acknowledged, they still exert a powerful influence on workplace perceptions and decision making.

A recent McKinsey study indicated that 27% of women and only 7% of men perceived that they had been discriminated against in their career (Desvaux et al., 2007). Some leaders are likely to perceive an unspoken risk when it comes to promoting a promising female executive. Women are less likely to get second chances. There is a smaller tolerance for error or experimentation in the learning process. There are still officers in large organizations (and customers, too) who wonder whether women belong. After the first error or mediocre performance, the woman is effectively out the door, figuratively, if not literally.

Mentors and Role Models

There are fewer successful role models for women looking up the hierarchy. There is sometimes no one to observe to see how a successful woman behaves in an organization. When there is only one woman in a leadership role it is hard to know whether she is a good model for other women there. There is also a dearth of mentors and patrons for women. Male organizations and corporations use a complex and unspoken set of codes to transmit meaning and rules and values. Women need mentors and colleagues to help them interpret and understand how the rules work. Even when mentors can be found, gender-based relationship dynamics can make things more complex. As Barsh, Craske, and Cranston (2008, p. 45) observed: “awkward sexual politics, real or perceived, between senior men and younger women, make it harder for women to find sponsors.” Male mentors are not likely to treat female protégés in the same familiar way that they treat other men. They are not likely to have the same off-site, after-work experiences that they might with other males.

Regarding Gender and Women

Some qualities associated with women are worth mentioning. They may not be true in every case, but they are widely shared and described in the business literature. Their impact is complicated and it is not clear how it all works, but coaches must be aware of these issues if they intend to work effectively with women.

Women are widely thought to be more nurturing and compassionate than men. A similar perception is that women are more relationship oriented and process oriented than task oriented, and that women tend to work more collaboratively than men. Eagly and Carli (2007) refer to these qualities as communal as opposed to the agentic tendencies of men, who are thought to be more self-reliant, aggressive, dominant, and independent. It is the agentic qualities that most people currently associate with effective leadership. As a result, women find themselves in a bind. If they act “naturally” and compassionately, working collaboratively in a network of teammates, they may not be perceived to be leader-like. If they conform to male leadership norms, they can be perceived to be difficult or pushy or not a team player (or worse). Soccer coach Anson Dorrance (n.d.) makes a similar observation after struggling to figure out how to best to coach women:

Many observers note that women are much less likely to feel comfortable taking credit for accomplishments and “blowing their own horn” (Smith, 2000; Tannen, 1994). In meetings, men in business often jump into a discussion, making their certainty and expertise explicit. They can sound quite positive, as they have been taught to do, whereas women can be more comfortable expressing doubts and uncertainty. Successful male leaders model self-promotion that is borderline boastful, and executives are expected to let people know about the important contributions that they have made.

Rosabeth Moss Kanter makes this observation (“A Vote of Confidence,” 2005) about her MBA students at Harvard:

Women are more likely to be polite to avoid seeming egotistical or presumptuous. Sometimes women allow themselves to be interrupted or ignored at meetings while men are elbowing each other for airtime. Women, according to Tannen and others, do not want to seem as if they are putting themselves “above” others. Soccer coach Dorrance (n.d.) makes the following observation:

Women tend to seek interpersonal balance or, at least, the impression of it. Whereas men feel that they must regularly assert their achievements to be taken seriously as a person with a future in the organization, women sometimes hang back, uncomfortable with this male posturing. Men and women even “boast” differently, with men playing a “mine-is-bigger-than-yours” kind of game, whereas women tend to promote themselves in a more understated way (Miller, Cooke, Tsang, & Morgan, 1992).

Eagly and Carli (2007) point out that “male” behavior can be problematic when exhibited by females. Self-promotion is not communal, and modesty is still expected from women. When they behave like a male stereotype, they create discomfort and confusion and resistance.

Sometimes women aspire to success by working behind the scenes. This stance may be comfortable for them, but it is unlikely to produce greatness or success beyond a circumscribed limit or glass ceiling.

Serious career effectiveness requires visibility. Once again, the key is in the interpretation or perception. In certain male environments, when modesty is interpreted as inadequacy, the woman is the loser. The challenge for women is to figure out how to promote themselves without alienation from self and others. Not surprisingly, research indicates that some women react to negative stereotyping by “disappearing” (Goffee & Jones, 2000). They wear clothes that disguise their femininity or hide their unique flair, or they try to blend in by behaving like men. This reduces their chance of being seen as leader material, and it diminishes the likelihood that the unique qualities women bring to the workplace will be appreciated. Inauthenticity is rarely a good long-term strategy.

Communication Style

Women and men communicate differently in the workplace. Significant differences are described in Tannen’s (1986, 1990, 1994) three volumes of work on male and female conversation. They are essential reading for the executive coach. Tannen is a sociolinguist who has spent considerable time observing communication in business settings and comes to the following general conclusions: Men and women tend to use different conversational styles, and when styles clash or are misunderstood, the problems they cause are mislabeled as bad intentions, lack of ability, poor character, or some other negative intrapersonal quality. The problem for women in the workplace is that, as Tannen puts it (1990, p. 15): “The male is seen as normative, the female as departing from the norm. … Furthermore, if women’s and men’s styles are shown to be different, it is usually women who are told to change.” She notes that women are judged negatively because of their conversational style, a style learned early by many girls as a part of normal female development.

Here are several of the prominent themes that Tannen describes. The reader is urged to consult the original sources.

1. Women are inclined to make requests or suggestions rather than make a direct injunction (e.g., “Would you mind taking a look at the Bull’s-Eye account if you get a chance?” instead of “Please audit the Bull’s-Eye account and let me know how it looks by Tuesday”). Frankel (2004) calls this “couching statements as questions.” This tactic can feel safer, but can be confusing to men or women who do not understand what the request actually means (Tannen, 1994, pp. 78–94). Some people appreciate this style while others actually do not understand it. Here’s an example from everyday life (courtesy of Tracey Pomeroy):

   Jane: Where would you like to go for lunch? (Thinking, “Let’s talk about it. I care about you and am trying to politely engage you in a friendly negotiation, so that we can agree on a place.”)

   John: Let’s go to Chevy’s. (Thinking, “You asked a simple, direct question and I gave you a clear answer. This is polite, because it lets you know what I want, plus it doesn’t waste a lot of time haggling. I just want to eat, and Chevy’s sounds good right now.”)

   Jane: What about Tortolla’s? (Thinking, “He’s being a little rude and pushy. Why didn’t he ask me what I wanted to do? Doesn’t he care at all about me and what I think?”)

   John: Tortolla’s might be crowded at this time of day. (Thinking, “If she wanted to go to Tortolla’s, why didn’t she just say so in the first place, instead of tricking me by asking what I wanted to do, and then ignoring my answer? What’s going on here?”)

   This is an example of how different communication styles can get in the way of two well-meaning people and create confusion and bad feelings. Neither style is right or wrong. They are just different, and they strive to get to the same place by a different route.

2. Some women apologize compulsively and unnecessarily (Tannen, 1994, pp. 43–51). This is a social convention, a kind of politeness, much like the greeting “How are you?” (No one really expects a direct, explicit answer to that question.) When women apologize (e.g., “Sorry I didn’t get back to you yesterday”), men often see it as a sign of deference or even of weakness. Women simply use apologies to keep relationships balanced and to show respect. “When a guy hears sorry, he infers that you’ve made a mistake” (Evans, 2000, p. 147).
3. In this same way, women say thank you to sustain positive feelings in a relationship, not necessarily because something must be thanked (Tannen, 1994, pp. 54–57). This is sometimes confusing to men, who may figure that they must have done something to deserve gratitude. For men, thanking can put the thanker in a one-down position. In the competitive games of life, for men, thanking someone can mean that they have just lost a round.
4. Women sometimes ask for an opinion as a way to show consideration for another person, even when they do not intend to actually use that opinion (Tannen, 1994, pp. 61–63). For women, a request for an opinion can simply be a tactic to show respect or to open a discussion. This can be confusing to men if they render an opinion but it is not used. Males may interpret such opinion-seeking as manipulative or as a sign of weakness or indecisiveness or disrespect.
5. Men and women might use praise and criticism differently. Tannen describes the intrinsic trickiness in these behaviors, as people interpret and desire feedback in very different ways, depending on their personality and background (Tannen, 1994, pp. 66–70). Some people interpret praise as manipulative or prying, whereas others are embarrassed by it. Others think they are performing poorly when no praise is given. Some bosses do not say anything to solid performers, because “everything is OK.” Conversely, many men have had a coach or a father who told them not to worry when they are being yelled at or corrected. “Worry when I stop yelling at you, for that means I’ve lost interest in your development,” they say. Tannen speculates that “many men feel women don’t tell them directly enough when they are doing something wrong, and many women feel that men don’t tell them directly enough if they are doing well” (1994, p. 68). Dorrance (n.d.) observed that:

   If you make a general criticism of a men’s team, they all think you are talking about someone else. Videotape is proof of the guilty party. You don’t need that proof with a woman. In fact, if you make a general criticism of women, everyone in the room thinks you are talking about her. If you tell a woman she made a mistake, she’ll believe you. Seeing it on tape often only makes it worse. However, because I have found that a lot of women do not have the confidence to feel they are as good as they actually are, we use our videos as highlight reels to build their confidence.

6. Women use trouble talk as a rapport builder (Evans, 2000, p. 23; Tannen, 1994, pp. 71–72). They share difficulties as a way to connect with others. Men sometimes do not know what to make of such talk, and they often feel compelled to solve the problem presented in the talking. The female participant interprets this as a lack of empathy, an inability to listen and care. Many men view such trouble talk as complaining or whining. In their view, real team players focus on the positives. They roll up their sleeves and get to work. For men, talk is more likely to be seen as the simple transmission of information, whereas women use talk to maintain relationship, support, and interaction. Evans (2000, p. 31) notes that you never heard Dragnet Sergeant Joe Friday say “Just the facts, sir.”
7. Women (and some men) communicate indirectly, and the indirectness is confusing to others (Tannen, 1994, pp. 78–95). Traditional male leaders, especially those who played on athletic teams or served in the military, are used to giving and receiving direct statements at work. Tannen gives several examples of women and men who hint around at important information instead of providing direct speech (including a transcript of a hypothetical airline crash that might have been avoided: “What do you think about that ice on the wings …”). Indirectness is not the same as weakness, but it can be interpreted that way in some cultures. Once again, women do this as a way to sustain relationships. It comes across as caring and respectful (e.g., “Would you mind getting the Anderson file when you get a chance, please?”).

Dysfunctional Communication Patterns

In her book They Just Don’t Get It, Do They?, Kathleen Reardon describes five ways that male–female communication patterns damage women in the workplace. She refers to these dysfunctional communication patterns as DCPs. They are:

• Dismissive DCPs—This is the most common pattern. It happens when men interrupt, talk over, or simply ignore what women say. Women are put in the difficult position of having to reassert their point, sometimes against resistance. In this situation it can be easier to relent and be silent, which perpetuates the problem. The trick is to find a way to create a culture that does not value this pattern or allow it to continue. Calling attention to the pattern off-line (later on and behind closed doors) and commenting about it when it happens are two ways to start.
• Retaliatory DCPs—Sometimes men communicate with women in a manner that retaliates for all of the perceived slights that they have received at the hands of women in their lives. Sometimes they limit conversation as a way to avoid being bested by a woman, which many men find humiliating and unacceptable. When a woman has a bright idea they abruptly find fault, and then criticize in a way that mystifies that woman. All of this happens without comment on the process.
• Patronizing DCPs—This problem derives from the traditional roles that women are perceived to play (mothers, wives, or daughters). Some men communicate with women as if they were communicating with their mother or wife or daughter, and sometimes women respond in kind. Men find it hard to view a woman as a colleague, so they diffuse the role discomfort by flirting or trivializing the conversation. Women then have to make the difficult decision about whether to go along with the role problem or confront and dispute it.
• Exclusionary DCPs—Reardon makes the point that men (like women) often have two communication modes: one for use in an all-male situation and one for when women are present. This becomes clear when a man says something at a meeting and then apologizes to a woman who is present. This implies that certain things just cannot be said in front of women, an exclusionary sign, when you think about it. This also happens when critical information is passed along at informal, all-male gatherings, of which women are well aware. Once again, the question arises: Should I confront this situation? If so, when and how? If not, what are the consequences for myself and other women (and men) in the company?
• Undermining DCPs—These are observations made about women that are disparaging or even devastating to a career. They are subtle and found in media reports that give organizations reason to sustain stereotyped responses to women in the workforce. Examples include the evolution of the “Mommy track” for women who were not assumed to be fully committed to their careers, and the highlighting of women who criticize other women in the workplace. It can be exhausting to have to deal with these subtly undermining influences in the media and the corporate culture.

Unless both parties are on the same song sheet, misunderstandings are likely. The best communication happens when both parties naturally understand what things mean (which is unlikely) or when they have ongoing discussions about conversational style, make allowances, and get used to each other.

Speaking Up

This is a difficult gender area, and another in which differential perceptions hurt ambitious females. Males are taught to stand up and speak up. Plebes at West Point are made to stand on the bank of the Hudson River and give commands that can be heard on the opposite shore. Many have trouble at first, but eventually all cadets learn how to do it. Women often learn the opposite: to hang back and let others take the floor, to speak quietly and modestly, and avoid sticking out in a crowd. When women do speak out, they run the risk of seeming boorish or obnoxious or pushy.

Occasionally, men can even yell at work and get away with it. Such an outburst might be seen as a “great leadership moment.” But when a woman raises her voice, she runs the risk of being seen as out of control: “She’s lost it. You know how women are …”

Even looking men directly in the eye can be risky for women. When men do it, it is seen as an act of good communication, even honesty. Straightforward men in White American culture reach out and offer a firm handshake and look you right in the eye. When women look men right in the eye, men do not always know how to interpret things. They get uncomfortable. It is confusing.

Many women have the experience of speaking but not being heard. To succeed in the present business environment, women must find an assertive voice and find a way to navigate through these narrow waters. Too cautious and you are seen as inadequate; too loud and you are viewed as pushy. But modern business moves quickly, and there’s no time to wait for others to politely draw you out.

Leadership Style

There is substantial research evidence to indicate that women tend to lead differently than men, and this is no surprise, given the different ways that boys and girls are raised and socialized. Evidence implies that women are typically more inclusive and participatory in their leadership efforts. They are inclined to seek consensus and participation, and a case can be made that those qualities are truly modern and can be more effective in a creative, entrepreneurial economy with today’s workers. Women are also more likely to share knowledge and to solicit information before they act. They are less likely to value domination or hierarchy, and tend to behave as someone in the center of a web of human resources. One female chief executive officer (CEO) calls her style “empathic enabling” (Betsey Cohen in Smith, 2000, p. 3). This is a far cry from the descriptions of leadership that male athletic coaches provide in Chapter 12 of this book. Several sources of research on leadership styles associated with women are listed in the “References” section (Carr-Rufino, 1993; Gilligan, 1982; Helgesen, 1990; Rosener, 1990; Smith, 2000).

Transformational and transactional leadership models are described in Chapter 15. Transformational leaders are viewed as powerful role models who gain trust and empower followers to reach common goals. They influence by communicating positive values and optimistic excitement. Transactional leaders understand leadership as an exchange between leader and follower, a give and take that appeals to the self-interest of both parties. They overtly reward and punish desired and unacceptable behavior with money and assignments. Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, and van Engen (2003) describe empirical evidence that women tend to be more transformational in style, and there is a widespread perception in the leadership literature that such a style, especially when it is warm in tone, is effective in the current business environment.

Multitasking

There is evidence that women are more comfortable doing several things at once, whereas men are thought to prefer sequential tasking. This observation has some early support from functional MRI studies of brain activity (Gurian & Annis, 2008), but much of the evidence derives from observations of the harried mother who effectively manages several children, the demands of a household, aging parents, and school board meetings all at the same time.

Response to Role Pressures

It is clear that, on average, women spend more time and energy on family matters than men, and that they pay a price. In the McKinsey study (Desvaux et al., p. 15), men and women reported that family was perceived to be important at about equal levels, but that women pay a higher price. Hewlett paints a depressing picture in her Harvard Business Review report (2002), noting that as women climb higher in the corporate world they tend to have fewer children, while the reverse is true for men.

Hewlett goes on to point out that “the persistent wage gap between men and women is due mainly to the penalties that women incur when they interrupt their careers to have children” (2002, p. 69). Men and women do not respond in the same way to perceptions of familial responsibilities, and men cannot bear children. Since the workplace favors continuity and commitment to long hours, women lose out. As an example, older dentists have been known to decline to hire a younger female associate because they are worried that she will settle in to their practice, establish important relationships with a patient base, and then leave to have children and start a family.

Familial responsibilities also make it hard to participate fully in social activities outside of work, and such participation is crucial to advancement. It is impossible to get ahead in 40 hours per week. There is much to be done outside of the workplace at receptions, dinners, meetings, outings, and charity events. Everyone knows this, but that does not change the fact that there are also soccer games, orthodontic appointments, and family crises that cannot be calendared.

How Coaches Can Help

Coaches must first sort out a challenging conceptual and practical matter: How and where do you focus attention? If you believe that powerful workplace forces inhibit female success, why would you work with individual female clients to change their personal behavior? This can imply that there is something wrong or inadequate about them, and that is why they are not being promoted. Although this diagnosis could certainly be accurate, women face multiple, complicated forces of resistance in the workplace. The environment is not always helpful or fair. Trend data indicate that the progress of women in corporate life has stalled or is even headed south. The trick for coaches is to provide help with personal change in an unaccommodating environment without blaming the victim. The concept of blaming the victim made it into the social change literature with Ryan’s 1971 book of the same name. It cautioned against blaming people for their responses to systemic discrimination by insisting that they should change. In this model, widespread poverty, especially in one ethnic group, is blamed on personal sloth. This is a variation of the fundamental attribution error described in Chapter 9 (“Social Psychology and Coaching”). Context is the most powerful force, but negative outcomes are attributed to individual behavior and personal characteristics. Coaches have to figure out how to establish collaborative relationships with female clients such that they can help women respond to workplace challenges without implying pathology, inadequacy, or blame. There are ways to do this.

Women face difficult decisions about whether to go along with or challenge the prevailing culture and trends. Women clearly cannot sit back and hope that things will improve or that they will somehow succeed by chance. Coaches can help them find ways to learn about the work culture, get feedback about their own performance, and make necessary changes to respond to difficult workplace challenges.

First, study the gender literature. It is well developed and extremely interesting. No coach, male or female, should work with a female executive without exposure to this body of literature. Recommended readings are listed at the end of this chapter. The books by athletic coaches are surprisingly relevant and compelling. Most men will be enlightened by what they read.

Work on relationship development with your client. Establish a solid, unique bond with each new client. Find out from your client what she wants to accomplish and assess her personal goals.

A coach can provide a calibrating influence. Help your female clients notice how they feel and how they want to feel, then work toward getting there. Sometimes just having a supportive confidant is enough to solve this problem; sometimes a change project must be implemented.

In many ways, the coach’s job is to help clients assess and push their comfort levels. Often, a serious career upgrade requires a visit to the outside of one’s comfort zone. Along those lines, a coach can often help a female client figure out how to become more visible in an organization without feeling too uncomfortable. Women cannot expect promotion to the highest levels of organizations if they have spent their entire career below the radar or in places most comfortable for women. It is important to have experience in marketing and, perhaps, human resources. But it is at least as important to demonstrate success and expertise in operations or finance or IT or strategic planning, and it may not be easy getting there.

Coaches can help female clients communicate their career aspirations to those who “count” in their organization. Sometimes, because a woman has been “hanging back,” key people in the organization misjudge her ambition or goals. This perception can often be corrected when an executive makes her desires explicit. This can be as simple as sitting down with a leader and expressing those aspirations. Occasionally this must be done repeatedly with several key people in the organization. Women cannot expect others to read their minds or guess accurately at their career goals, because others will often get them wrong. Along those lines, a coach can help clients devise and suggest alternative ways for performance evaluation. Present methods may be based upon male norms and may be wholly inappropriate for a woman and her goals.

A wise and experienced coach can sometimes serve as a “gender translator.” If that coach has been around organizations and has been observant, he or she may be able to translate rules, mores, codes, and the behavior of others for an executive client. Work can be viewed as a “game” that must be played. Games have rules, and you need a thorough understanding of the rules to succeed. Coaches can also serve as an ersatz mentor, even though he or she is outside of the organizational culture.

In some ways women actually have an advantage in this area. As traditional outsiders to the male corporate world they often understand men better than men understand women. This is a result of historic power dynamics. Women have been in a position that required them to pay attention, and men have not. Sometimes men have no idea about gender-related aspects of everyday life, and this causes them to seem clueless.

Coaching Women for Leadership

Judith Blanton (2009) and colleagues (RHR International) have produced a model that centers on the idea of authenticity. They interviewed 65 female executives and 35 other stakeholders and came to the conclusion that women lead best when operating from an authentic place, expressing their true self as experienced from within. They focused on five forces that can provide a useful map for assessment and for change:

1. The Sphere of Authenticity—This is the critical component and it consists of the internal consistency between values and overt behavior as well as the external perception by others that the leader is expressing real values and is genuine and trustworthy. Internal consistency comes first, and it requires that female executives explore and understand their own values and priorities.
2. Women Leader Climate—The climate for female leadership must be carefully assessed and acknowledged. Ultimately the authentic leader has a role in shaping this climate. Organizational cultures vary widely along this dimension. Expression of authentic leadership is easier in more accepting corporate cultures.
3. Individual Psychology and Interpersonal Resources—These are thought to be strengths for most women in the workplace. Internal individual resources include emotional intelligence, motivational and cognitive traits, and the skills and knowledge accumulated along the way. External interpersonal resources include mentors, networks, and a variety of social skills.
4. Leader Expectations—This is the organization’s existing view of good leadership. It consists of things like style, method, and appearance. It is often based upon traditional male ways of leading. It is what the organization expects from good leaders. These views can make it harder or easier for women to lead authentically, depending on their quality.
5. External Commitments—These are the obligations that women face outside of the work setting, including family responsibilities and community interests. They are typically perceived to be more pressing by women than men.

In this model, the organization and the female executive influence each other, and a win–win situation is possible. “Successful women lead authentically; pushing the envelope of institutional norms with power and credibility” (Blanton, p. 10). The organization grows and women thrive. It is hard to imagine sustained success for female executives if they are not able to lead with authenticity, but authentic leadership is likely to challenge, and perhaps, threaten traditionally male cultures.

Centered Leadership

Barsh et al. (2008), as a part of a McKinsey Leadership Project, interviewed 85 successful female leaders and combined their views with academic literature to devise a leadership model for women. It presupposes the following conditions: intelligence, tolerance for change, desire to lead, and communication skills.

• The model begins with a focus on meaning. Leaders must figure out what they care for and find a way to work toward a purpose. The work must be personally meaningful, as in following one’s heart. When this is not possible because of organizational culture or market forces, (and it is not feasible to relocate) it may be possible to find meaning in the job that is actually available.
• To be successful as a leader, one must manage energy effectively. Since most successful people work long hours, and since women come home to work a “second shift,” it is imperative to carefully observe and manage personal energy without squandering it or giving it away needlessly.
• One must learn to use positive framing to succeed (see Chapter 6 of this book on cognitive therapy). This involves learned optimism and accurate, mostly positive thinking. Some people are better at this than others, but it is essential to successful leadership.
• Women who want to lead and succeed must connect. In spite of the systemic challenges, networks must be established and mentors recruited. Positive personal relationships with senior colleagues are crucial. Sponsors can help women highlight their successes and potential to the organization. Women also have to get better at reciprocity, the give-and-take interactions that are central to the transactional leadership style often favored by men.
• Women must take risks and engage. McKinsey found that people who took calculated risks were happier. It seems clear that women cannot sit by and wait for things to change.

Specific Feedback about Client Behavior

A coach can sometimes be of enormous help by observing and giving feedback about small, but important things that a client does. These are behaviors that are under that client’s control and can be changed rather quickly and sometimes painlessly, with powerful results. There are many books now on the market to provide examples of this kind of feedback. One example, Lois Frankel’s Nice Girls Don’t Get the Corner Office (2004), is mandatory reading for coaches, and it includes a treasure chest of hard-hitting, specific suggestions for coaching consideration. Her list of 101 mistakes that women make in the workplace includes:

• Pretending it isn’t a game
• Doing the work of others
• Needing to be liked
• Acting like a man
• Decorating your office like your living room
• Using only your nickname or first name
• Waiting to be noticed
• Giving away your ideas
• Being invisible
• Couching statements as questions
• Asking permission
• Using touchy-feely language
• Smiling inappropriately
• Tilting your head
• Grooming in public
• Wearing glasses around your neck
• Internalizing messages
• Accepting the fait accompli
• Being the last to speak

This kind of direct feedback can be tricky to deliver and to receive. It implies that a woman is willing to take risks in order to move ahead. There is risk (mentioned earlier in this chapter), and risks should be discussed, negotiated, and agreed upon between coach and client. Sometimes a coach and client can get buy-in for changes from the organization, so that new client behavior is understood in a positive frame. Some clients expect this kind of feedback and direct advice from coaches and will not feel coached until they get it.

Coaches can help female executives become more comfortable with power and more creative in gaining and managing it. Many women would benefit from experimentation with how they present themselves. Coaches can observe, assess, and provide feedback to clients about their communication and behavioral style. This can be crucial. People cannot accurately judge their own style or impact, and a coach can be essential to this process. Watch your client on the job. Get real-time data and information. Synthesize it and communicate it to your clients in a way that energizes them and motivates them to make small but important changes. Create a change project with target behaviors. Monitor the changes and adjust the plan. Get more feedback and do it again.

Help your client with the family balance question, if it is relevant. This is an important challenge for most women, and it probably ought to be for most men. A neutral person—someone outside of job and home—can be very useful in this process. It can be gut wrenching, because success in some jobs precludes a healthy family life. Hard choices have to be made.

Requirements for Coaching

Not every coach will be able to be useful to every client. Some men and some women may not be comfortable confronting the issue of gender as a coach. Some clients demonstrate no interest in gender issues, and others consider them to be irrelevant, offensive, or a distraction. Some are exquisitely aware of the dangers related to gender politics in a male-dominated corporation or market, and they steer a wide course around these dangers. Many business people, including women, view attention to gender as a “liberal” or “feminist” agenda, and a distraction from the real matters at hand. Others seem to possess a macho attitude, dismissive of gender bias or problems. Some women detest any potential association with the victim role. In the business press, it is common to read newspaper articles containing quotes from successful women (and these are actual quotes), such as, “I never found myself disadvantaged based upon being a woman,” “Do what you love. If you do, other things will take care of themselves,” and “When I encounter stereotypes, I put my head down and execute.” Some women fear the prospect of bringing gender questions into the workplace, and there is often good reason for that fear.

Assess your clients along this dimension. See how they view gender and the role that it plays. If there is a good match between your readiness and skill with the interests and needs of your client, proceed to study the gender question, head-on. If not, consider packaging gender issues in other, more acceptable ways. The same feedback and the same behavior changes can be viewed as an individual matter, leaving the abstraction of gender out of the picture entirely.

Effective coaching for women certainly requires a coach’s awareness of these issues, as well as an interest in them. Gender is a central aspect of our identity, and it is extremely interesting. As Tannen notes (1994, pp. 13–14), “Few elements of our identities come as close to our sense of who we are as gender. When you spot a person walking down the street toward you, you immediately and automatically identify that person as male or female.” You could misjudge someone’s racial or ethnic identity or not care about it (which is not to diminish the serious relevance of ethnicity). But it is virtually impossible to miss gender. It simply cannot be ignored.

The effective coach surely must study the gender-in-business literature to prepare for the role of coaching women. It is a complex landscape, and nearly everyone has a powerfully felt opinion. Several books in the References and Recommended Readings sections are important enough to be considered required reading. Of special note are Coughlin, Wingard, and Hollihan (2005), Harragan (1976), Helgesen (1990), Tannen (1994), Reardon (1995), Smith (2000), and Evans (2000).

What Organizations Can Do

It is in the best interest of companies and organizations to increase diversity. Executive coaches often have access to the highest levels of leadership. This presents an opportunity for them to weigh in on organizational factors that might be limiting the company and preventing it from taking full competitive advantage of their female resources.

Coaches must bring a positive outlook to the leadership table. Not much will happen if organizational leaders feel that they must try to diversify because they are being told to do so or forced to do so or because they must be perceived as politically correct. It is the job of corporate officers to make a profit. They must create and sustain competitive advantage. Coaches have the best chance of making a difference if they are able to convince leadership that greater gender diversity results in better company output. Accumulate empirical data and case studies to make your point (do it in a condensed format, of course). Help your individual clients do the same.

The McKinsey report (Desvaux et al., 2007, pp. 19–21) recommends four specific ways to enhance gender diversity:

1. Create and maintain gender diversity indicators without creating quotas. The company should establish an ongoing data-collection system to track how women fare in the organization. Segregation by gender within the organization (glass walls) should be monitored.
2. Implement flexible working arrangements for everyone (males and females). This would include flexible hours, mobile offices, and technological ways that minimize the impact of geography and rigid time schedules. Norms related to long hours and heavy travel should be reexamined and adjusted. This has to be done in ways that increase productivity in the long run. Younger employees and managers are likely to have a strong preference for time and location flexibility. The problem to be solved is the old notion that more hours are better and that people need to be sitting at their desks from 9 to 5 or, preferably, much later.

   Explore and develop nonlinear career paths (for women and men) to include breaks in service. Maternity leaves should be carefully structured to maintain contact between the employee and the organization during periods of absence.

3. Adapt the human resources process to make recruiting, appraisal, and career-management systems more women-friendly.
4. Help women master the dominant codes and nurture their ambition. Coaching, mentoring, and female networking fit in here.

The McKinsey report makes the point that leadership at the highest levels, including the CEO, must be involved and committed to this process. The Catalyst guide to corporate best practices (Advancing Women in Business, 1998) is listed in the “References” section.

Summary

1. Remember that men and women often see things differently. They have different impulses, different views of how to get things done, and different ideas on what is most important. At the same time, remember that stereotyping and generalizing are quite dangerous. There is no prototype “typical female” or “typical male” in real life. If there are, they are small in number. In fact, some women think and act more like stereotypical males than females, and you can not tell that by looking at them. Appearances are deceptive sometimes. Most of us possess aspects of both genders. Study this question and help clients evaluate themselves. The key is to ask, listen, and watch. Encourage active discussion of the ways that gender influences things. Put gender on the table. Organizations that are male-run tend to favor male mores, although some men lead in a “female” style. Even in “male” organizations, however, a “female” style can flourish. In some cases, it can have a transformative impact on the organization. This generally requires buy-in from leadership, and changes probably cannot be sold as “female.”
2. Help female clients decide what to do about the gender problem on a case-by-case basis. Help them think through the rules and decide how they want to handle things. There are usually several options. Do not try to force people to behave in ways which they do not agree with or find objectionable. It is best for clients to take advantage of their own style rather than to try to make a radical change. Small adaptations are usually possible, and wholesale gender style changes are ill advised. Success has many faces and there are multiple paths.

   An option that often makes sense is to help a female client enter into discussions with key colleagues and leaders to clear things up. “What do you think I mean when I say …?” is an example of the kind of discussion that can clarify and strengthen work relationships between the genders. “Why do we do things this way or that?” is another. The key is to establish a culture that welcomes open gender talk, even when disagreement is involved. Most people find it intriguing when presented in the right way.

   A gender-based 360-degree evaluation is a creative way to discover some of the gender trends and “mores”of the organization.

3. Avoid the impulse to blame and scapegoat. Do not blame the person and do not blame the organization. It is a waste of time and energy, and it tends to create costly negative emotions. If changes can be made in the organization, work on those changes. But, be willing to help your coaching clients accept the organization just as it is, without self-pity and perhaps without anger. Help them become savvy about gender politics and relations. It is unwise to take these things too personally. If the organization will not change and your client cannot accept this fact, explore the feasibility of a job change.
4. Help female clients figure out the unwritten rules and gender codes. Do a research project. Ask others in the organization about these rules. Most people have their own take on them and are happy to reveal this to a coach or a coworker.
5. Encourage your client to find an informal mentor within or outside the organization. This is nearly essential to career progress and development. Coaches may have to challenge the sponsoring organization to cooperate with this need.
6. Create a career plan or succession plan with your client. If this is not possible, at least open a discussion about where she is headed. Be careful about glass walls—invisible barriers that keep women in career ghettos. A successful rise to the top of a hierarchical organization usually requires time in key organizational positions (revenue generators, decision making, make-or-break jobs).
7. Coaches would be wise to support female executives at times when they become discouraged or demoralized by the prospect of swimming upstream in a male-dominated organization. The day-to-day toll can be exhausting, and it helps to have someone in your corner.

Note

The author wishes to acknowledge the contributions of Ana Maria Irueste-Montes to the chapter that appeared in the first edition of this book, as well as the gracious help of Judith Blanton of RHR International and Rebecca Turner of Alliant University in San Francisco.

References

Advancing women in business—The Catalyst guide: Best practices from the corporate leaders. (1998). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Alsop, R. (2007, July 17). How to raise female MBA enrollment. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved January, 31, 2009, from: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118462888966268184.xhtml.

Barsh, J., Craske, R. A., & Cranston, S. (2008, September). Centered leadership: How talented women thrive. McKinsey Quarterly. Available at: http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Centered_leadership_How_talented_women_thrive_2193.

Blanton, J. S. (2009). Women and authentic leadership. The California Psychologist, 42(1), 6–10.

Carr-Rufino, N. (1993). The promotable woman: Advancing through leadership skills. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Catalyst. (2009). Women in leadership. Available at: http://www.catalyst.org/.

Competitive drive: Palm puts up its fists as Microsoft attacks hand-held PC market. (2000, August 8). Wall Street Journal, p. A1.

Coughlin, L., Wingard, E., & Hollihan, K. (Eds.). (2005). Enlightened power: How women are transforming the practice of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Davidson, A. (1994). Gender differences in administrative ethics. In T. Cooper (Ed.), Handbook of administrative ethics (pp. 415–434). New York: Marcel Dekker.

de Beauvoir, S. (1952). The second sex. New York: Vintage Books.

DeBoer, K. (2004). Gender and competition. Monterey, CA: Coaches Choice.

Desvaux, G., Devillard-Hoellinger, S., & Baumgarten, P. (2007). Women matter: Gender diversity, a corporate performance driver. Available at: http://www.mckinsey.com/locations/paris/home/womenmatter/pdfs/ Women_matter_oct2007_english.pdf.

Dorrance, A. (n.d.). Coaching women: Going against the instinct of my gender. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from: www.spartan.org/resources/coachingwomen.doc.

Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 85(9), 63–71.

Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569–591.

Evans, G. (2000). Play like a man, win like a woman. New York: Broadway Books.

Fels, A. (2004). Do women lack ambition? Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 50–60.

Frankel, L. P. (2004). Nice girls don’t get the corner office. New York: Warner Business Books.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2000, September–October). Why should anyone be led by you? Harvard Business Review, 63–70.

Gurian, M., & Annis, B. (2008). Leadership and the sexes. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Harragan, B. (1976). Games mother never taught you. New York: Warner Books.

Helgesen, S. (1990). The female advantage: Women’s ways of leading. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Hewlett, S. A. (2002, April). Executive women and the myth of having it all. Harvard Business Review, 80(4), 66–73.

Ibarra, H., & Obodaru, O. (2009, January). Women and the vision thing. Harvard Business Review. Available at http://hbr.harvardbusiness.org/2009/01/womenand-the-vision-thing/ar/1

Miller, L., Cooke, L., Tsang, J., & Morgan, F. (1992, March). Should I brag? Nature and impact of positive and boastful disclosures for women and men. Human Communication Research, 364–399.

Reardon, K. (1995). They just don’t get it, do they? Boston: Little, Brown.

Rosener, J. (1990, November/December). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 119–125.

Ryan, W. (1971). Blaming the victim. New York: Vintage Books.

Schwartz, F. (1989, January–February). Management women and the new facts of life. Harvard Business Review, 65–76.

Smith, D. (2000). Women at work: Leadership for the next century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Tannen, D. (1986). That’s not what I meant! How conversational style makes or breaks relationships. New York: Ballantine.

Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: Ballantine.

Tannen, D. (1994). 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: William Morrow and Company.

A vote of confidence. (2005, November 14). Newsweek, p. 62.

Recommended Readings

Blum, D. (1997). Sex on the brain: The biological differences between men and women. New York: Penguin Books.

Book, E. W. (200). Why the best man for the job is a woman. New York: HarperCollins Books.

Davidson, M. J., & Cooper, C. L. (1992). Shattering the glass ceiling. London: Paul Chapman.

Gray, J. (1992). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus: A practical guide for improving communication and getting what you want from your relationships. New York: Harper Collins.

Henning, M., & Jardim, A. (1977). The managerial woman. New York: Pocket Books.

Morrison, A. M., White, R. P., & Van Velsor, E. (1992). Breaking the glass ceiling. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.

Swiss, D. J. (1996). Women breaking through. Princeton, NJ: Peterson’s/Pacesetter Books.

Tavris, C. (1992). The mismeasure of woman. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Willen, S. (1993). The new woman manager: 50 fast and savvy solutions for executive excellence. Lower Lake, CA: Asian Publishing.