Headlines the past few weeks have been-almost ad nauseum-about boardroom quotas. You would have to be living under a rock in the middle of the forest not to notice the lack of women in boardrooms and executive positions. Germany, Hong Kong and the United States are all in the same spot – hovering around 8-12% representation of women on boards. No country is exempt except Norway.
Pundits have provided reasons and catch-all titles for the disparity; a glass ceiling/sticky floor, organizational cultures, Off-On ramps, and the hard driving, male dominated work environment. All make sense, some are right, others questionable, a few are predictable, and the same story and same reasons have been around for decades.
Despite greater awareness, research, and policies, little has changed, and according Facebooks’s COO, Sheryl Sanderberg, the numbers are on a downward trend.
The visible lack of diversity is fuelling the quota debates- but why do we keep looking in the same places, examine the same things, only to return lukewarm solutions?
Fact: women are the majority of the workforce, overtaking men in university, and a sizeable percentage of middle management. Moving past management, the numbers drop off dramatically – in some organizations the drop off is steep- from 30 to 3%. Looking at the numbers, it’s time to broaden our scope of inquiry on boardroom quotas. It is nearly impossible to achieve board targets for women if their representation dissipates beyond middle management.
Look under the well worn corporate carpets for answers, and also ask the few women lingering on the fringes. Last year, I did just that and discovered two [seemingly] unrelated forces colliding that sheds light on the prevailing discussions.
What are these forces? One is Organizational change and the other is Mid-way career cycle. When the two meet head on, women (more than men), reflect, review and reconsider career choices.
To better understand the duality and dynamic, we need to review Jungian psychology. Jung viewed life in two halves. The first half focuses on finding a place in the external world and in the second looks inward to find self.
We have all heard the jokes about a mid-life crisis. The stereotype for men is the new sports car, leather jacket, gelled hair, or new paramour-or all. For women, midlife is internal struggles, questioning life and purpose. While midlife and mid career discussions occur at the same for men and women, the impact is shown and acted on very differently.
An organizational change on top of midlife creates introspection and evaluation of choices – to stay or leave. During such uncertainty, employees cope with upheaval, power shifts, and turf battles. These power struggles go well beyond turf, and include choosing sides, loyalty, new and old teams, location, and gossip borne of the unknown. That ‘perfect storm’ where bias and nepotism triumph rational thinking.
Small wonder that often the best and the brightest are the first to exit during change – of course, organizations can dig deep into their pockets and provide long term financial incentives to stay.
If midlife is a period of intense self-reflection and self-awareness is a critical leadership skill, is it not gravely important to secure this talent before, during and after a restructuring? Not only do organizations run the risk of talented women leaving, these women leave at a critical period of leadership ascension. Midpoint for women is roughly between the ages of 35 – 55 . Which is, of course, the sweet spot of career and for organizations the two decades in which to make ones mark.
Five executive women I interviewed last year shared harrowing stories about calamities during a business restructure. All five were prominent business executives, stellar careers, multiple promotions, exemplary performance with bonuses to match. All were either moved on or decided to leave.
The details of the stories would make any sane person’s blood boil and have all the markings for a great thriller. Three of the five had similar stories but weren’t working for the same company. These three had over fifteen years tenure with their respective companies, and all were called to a meeting to discuss what they thought was the restructuring–only to be introduced to a new boss.
Each new boss had substantially less experience and knowledge about the function, but they had all mentored their [now] new boss, and he had been elevated to a position above them. All five sought legal advice and all were told they had solid cases to litigate. None moved forward with any legal action.
These women and their respective organizations had spent years preparing them for leadership roles. Once they were nearly there, a few too many restructures ended five great careers on a bad note. Who loses in this situation? Everyone.
Organizations cannot evaluate every employee’s mental state or map out the political landscape before a restructuring exercise, but capturing the hearts and minds of employees in midcareer is incredible financial value and goodwill.
Yet too often the engagement focus and concern rests with the (typically male) senior team. One, two or sometimes three levels below – the bulk of management are women. Instead of debating the value of quotas, organizations need to tap into individual potential, motivation and engagement – particularly women.
It’s not about board room quotas, it’s all about understanding motivation of mid-career women before they walk out the door.
