In the latest HBR magazine (January 2009) INSEAD’s Herminia Ibarra and Otilia Obodaru wrote “Women & the Vision Thing”, which raised more than a few eyebrows and comments on blog sites. Ibarra and Obodaru intended to uncover assumptions and bias against women’s leadership ability in the business world. Much has been recently written about women’s superior leadership ability over men as transformational leaders, and that transformational leadership delivers a greater return on investment. “Women & the Vision Thing”, left me unsettled, and made me question the definition of “envisioning”, along with the conclusion.
Ibarra and Obodaru researched 2,816 executives from 149 countries in INSEAD’s executive education courses. “Women are judged to be less visionary than men in 360-degree feedback. “It may be a matter of perception, but it (envisioning) stops women from getting to the top.”
Countless studies have been done about the lack of women in leadership roles-from Catalyst to McKinsey to the London Business School- and while theories abound, there doesn’t seem to be any consensus. Can we now claim “perception on envisioning” precludes women from getting to the top? Highly doubtful.
Like many organizational competency frameworks, INSEAD developed a detailed definition of “envisioning”, describes envisioning as, “articulating a compelling vision, mission, and strategy that incorporate a multicultural and diverse perspective and connect employees, shareholders, suppliers, and customers on a global scale.” Merriam Webster calls envisioning, “visual imagery” or “to picture in the mind; imagine.”
Based on my experience working with executive teams, most leaders have an innate ability to picture in their mind where they–and the organizations–are headed. Interestingly, according to Ibarra and Obodaru’s findings, the male peers (representing the majority of peers) rated women lower on envisioning, whereas female peers, male superiors and subordinates did not. The researchers state, “our data suggest it’s the men who might feel most competitive toward their female peers.”
The article’s perspective on the ability to sell ideas to numerous stakeholders’ dependency on strong technical skills and a ‘nose to the grindstone focus on quantifiable objectives’ were most intriguing. All such issues cut across gender lines, hardly endemic to women. Many politically naïve managers are unaware of the elusive nature and adjustments required for leadership roles. Ibarra and Obodaru rightly indicate that the ‘game’ changes as you move up the corporate ladder. Many strong performers move up the functional ranks using the same technical skills, hitting a wall when moved into leadership roles.
Technical skills and assiduous attention to detail must carefully move aside as leadership now demands sophisticated social skills, along with the ability to mobilize followers for the collective goal. Effective leaders today must have a clear agenda, understand the political landscape, know how to build coalitions and requisite bargaining power. Having a vision is imperative, but leaders also need to understand how people think in order to have an agenda fulfilled. As the researchers acknowledge, women leaders prevail in this collaborative approach to leadership. Leaders are highly effective when they know where they’re headed and what they want to achieve.
Ibarra and Obodaru research stated that “women had a better command of detail [and] they were less prone to self-promotion than men.” Is self-promotion rather than the 'vision thing' the real stumbling block to the top? Self-promotion is a tricky thing and usually leaves some managers feeling uneasy which results in not doing it well. The Center for Creative Leadership coined a new term for authentic and ethical self-promotion; strategic visibility. Strategic visibility sounds more palatable than self-promotion or bragging.
The article mentions that “men speak more confidently and boldly on an issue, with very little data to back it up.” This is as true in boardrooms as it is on the sports field. Ambivalent, tentative language and being indirect leaves lasting (usually negative) impressions. Deborah Tannen’s research concluded that “women more than men use qualifying language and soften criticism with praise.” (Seldman & Brandon, 2004) Marty Seldman, co-author of the book, Survival of the Savvy, suggests ‘vocab rehab’, or learning how to present and sell ideas with firm language, as tentative or weak words negate leadership capabilities.
Based on my experience working with men and women leaders in Fortune 500 companies, I don’t agree with the simplicity of the ‘vision thing’. In senior leadership roles, the best leaders know how to build networks and coalitions, develop key relationships internally and externally and only then, sell their visions.
Ibarra and Obodaru tell the story of a manager who “lacked the networks that would have helped her spot shifting priorities in the wider market and was blindsided by the idea.” Relying too much on skills and too little on relationships is a common pitfall for many emerging leaders, male or female. Cultivating followers and having robust support up, down and around the organization ensures success for the leader and the organization. If we follow Ibarra and Obodaru’s suggestions we’ll begin to see a plethora of new courses on building the “vision thing” for women leaders. Yet in reality, women leaders would be better served by building key networks, nurturing strategic visibility and using firm language to sell their vision.
Jane Horan
