Are You Coaching Females To CLIMB The Corporate Ladder or To HOLD ON To Their Current Positions?

Are You Coaching Females To CLIMB The Corporate Ladder or To HOLD ON To Their Current Positions?

Are you coaching your female corporate clients to climb the corporate ladder or to hold on to their current positions? Without realizing it, you may be coaching for the wrong skills. You may unknowingly be a victim of social norms and worse you may be passing this behavior onto your clients!

What’s new in the research on women’s leadership? Are we behind the “eight ball” compared to other developed nations when it comes to developing women leaders? As a coach, should you structure your engagement differently when coaching a female leader?   

To register for this Free webinar copy and paste this link into your browser: https://www4.gotomeeting.com/register/503139327

If you are looking to increase your income, move up in your organization or land a position contact:
CB Bowman, MBA, CMC, MCEC at Executive Leadership, LLC 908.509.1744 cb@exec-leadershipllc.com; http://www.exec-leadershipllc.com.

Stop Working All Those Hours

by Robert C. Pozen  |  11:20 AM June 15, 2012

"He's one of my best employees. He always puts in ten-hour days, sometimes much more."
Is this how your boss judges you and your colleagues? Probably yes, according to a 2010 study published in Human Relations. In the study, a group of researchers led by business professor Kimberly Elsbach conducted extensive interviews of 39 corporate managers. They found that these managers generally considered their employees who spent more time in the office to be more dedicated, more hardworking, and more responsible.

At first glance, this seems perfectly reasonable. Hourly wages and the classic 40-hour work week have trained us to measure our labor by the number of hours we log. However, this mindset is dead wrong when applied to today's professionals. The value of lawyers, consultants, and analysts isn't the time they spend, but the value they create through their knowledge.

Even worse, when managers judge their employees' work by the time they spend at the office, they impede the development of productive habits. By focusing on hours worked instead of results produced, they let professionals avoid answering the most critical question: "Am I currently using my time in the best possible way?" As a result, professionals often use their time inefficiently.

Business meetings are a perfect illustration. Very few professionals would say that attending meetings is the best use of their time. In one survey, white-collar workers estimated that two thirds of meeting time is pure waste. I agree: all too often, information is repeated or the discussion goes off-topic.

Yet, many meetings are too long, too large, and too unfocused. Why? Consider one manager's description of an employee, as reported in Elsbach's study:

"So this one guy, he's in the room at every meeting. Lots of times he doesn't say anything, but he's there on time and people notice that. He definitely is seen as a hardworking and dependable guy."

In other words, this manager praised his or her employee not for the value that he added to the meetings that he attended, but merely for his physical presence. Given this structure of rewards, it is no surprise that we keep seeing unnecessary and unproductive meetings.

More broadly, many professionals use their time inefficiently because their firm's hour-oriented culture hasn't forced them to think rigorously about what's really important. Sometimes, this leads professionals to spend an inordinate amount of time perfecting one particular task — say, the formatting of an internal presentation — instead of spending time where it might be more useful.

Worst of all, if you measure your productivity by time spent, your only way to get ahead is to spend more hours in the office — to the detriment of the rest of your life. In research published in HBR in 2006, Sylvia Ann Hewlett and Carolyn Buck Luce reported that 62 percent of high-earning individuals in America (whom they define as the top 6% of earners) work 50 hours or more per week; 35 percent work 60 hours or more per week.

That fits my observation of New York law firms, where associates routinely bill 3,000 hours each year. That equates to 60 hours per week during a 50 week year; including non-billable hours, these 3,000-hour lawyers generally worked 12 hour days, six days a week. They barely had enough time for sleeping — let alone caring for their families, or just having fun.

What You Can Do About It

How can you remove yourself from this treadmill of long, wasted hours at work? Start by constantly evaluating your use of time — even if your organization's culture doesn't force you to.

That means knowing what's important to you, your organization, and your boss — and, vitally, what's not important. So think critically and rigorously about your priorities.
Then, be prepared to say "no" to requests that don't matter:

Decline meetings, whenever you can. To be polite, you can explain your workload and request to see the meeting's minutes instead.
Don't be afraid to use the "delete" button when reviewing your inbox.
If you can't say "no" to a certain request, recognize that it may only require a B+ effort. Don't spend hours bumping it up to an A+ unless you really need to.
While individual employees can change their own habits, organizations need strong-willed leaders to make more radical changes. These leaders must thoroughly reform their organization's implicit and explicit reward structure. Are employees praised for coming in on Saturday — even if only to finish work that could have been completed during regular hours? Are employees suspicious of others who leave early for the day in order to watch their child's Little League games?

Of course, this change won't come easily. It's easy to count hours. It's much harder to set project metrics or make subjective evaluations. But smart leaders realize that the only way they can succeed is by getting the most out of their employees. And the only way they can get the best out of their employees is to focus on results, not hours.
More blog posts by Robert C. Pozen
More on: Work life balance

ROBERT C. POZEN
Robert C. Pozen is a Senior Lecturer of Business Administration at Harvard Business School. His forthcoming book, Extreme Productivity: Boost Your Results, Reduce Your Hours, will be available in October

 REPRINT FROM: HBR

If you are looking to increase your income, move up in your organization or land a position contact:
CB Bowman, MBA, BCC, CMC, MCEC at Executive Leadership, LLC 908.509.1744 cb@exec-leadershipllc.com; http://www.exec-leadershipllc.com.

4 Hiring Requirements You Have No Control Over

by Vault Careers
Published: Friday, June 08, 2012
At Vault, we spend a lot of time telling you which factors of a job search are in your control: cover letters, resumes, networking, first impressions (firm handshakes, everybody!)

That may lead you to believe that when you don't get the job, you must have done something wrong.

And it's a possibility. But there's also a chance that some silly stuff is going on with employers that has nothing to do with you.

The truth is, it's a buyers' market. And with huge pools of candidates to choose from--and a huge risk aversion--employers are really dragging their heels with hiring. Thus, they're also getting a nit picky with their hiring criteria.

Unfortunately, there's not much you can do about misinformed, unfair, or just plain ridiculous requirements--but you can take heart knowing it's not always you. Sometimes, it's them.

 1. A Hot Spouse

James Franklin, the head football couch for Vanderbilt, has strategy for hiring, and it doesn't have much to do with qualifications. "I've been saying it for a long time, I will not hire an assistant until I see his wife. If she looks the part and she's a D1 recruit, then you got a chance to get hired. That's part of the deal."

The reasoning? "There's a very strong correlation between having the confidence, going up and talking to a women, and being quick on your feet and having some personality and confidence and being articulate and confident, than it is walking into a high school and recruiting a kid and selling him."

Okay. So it's this tactic is really about finding candidates with confidence. But it's still gross.

2. A Job

Yahoo's Vera H-C Chan illuminates this obnoxious practice with a dating analogy: "Wanted: Someone exactly like my last boyfriend (see list of qualities), only better. Demonstrate success in a proven relationship, preferably a current one."

It seems counterintuitive—why ask that those who need a job don't apply for it? But the practice of only wanted to hire the employed has to do with risk management. Employers don't want to invest in a candidate whose skills have gotten rusty. And it's easier to assess the employee's current situation for clues to work history than it is to ask questions about a job from months or years earlier.

But beyond just unfair and extremely frustrating, many have been wondering whether stipulating that "unemployed need not apply" is actual discrimination. Several bills seeking to ban this practice have been brought to legislation committees as recently as April.

3. A Hop-Free Employment history

You've probably heard that switching jobs often is bad for your employment prospects in the long run.

And unfortunately, weeding out the job hoppers is a fairly common part of employers' screening process: between two and six percent of job seekers are rejected for having moved around too much, according to a study by Evolv.

Too bad this conventional wisdom is completely unfounded. Evolv's research also showed virually no difference in candidates "survival" rates at their next jobs, whether they'd had one job their whole lives, or 15. Check out this handy graph for a visual on the nonsense.

4. Current Employment with the Company

To be fair, there is merit to the practice of hiring internally; it's less expensive, time consuming, and has better chances of working out to consider employees for new or elevated positions.

But it can sure feel like a lock out to everyone else.

Read More:
Y! Big Story: Why you can't get the job (Yahoo! News)
Having a Hot Wife Could Land You That Job (Business Insider)
Is 'Unemployed Need Not Apply' discrimination? (U-T San Diego)
An Inside Job: More Firms Opt to Recruit From Within(WSJ)
Does Previous Work History Predict Future Employment Outcomes? (Evolv Study)

Category: Interviewing Job Search Networking Resumes & Cover Letters Workplace Issues


If you are looking to increase your income, move up in your organization or land a position contact:
CB Bowman, MBA, CMC, MCEC at Executive Leadership, LLC 908.509.1744 cb@exec-leadershipllc.com; http://www.exec-leadershipllc.com.

Generation X and the Narrowing Career Path

BY: TAMMY ERICKSON

REPRINT FROM: HBR

10:25 AM Wednesday May 23, 2012 

Melissa, a talented Gen X'er, is given a promotion that puts her in direct contention for a key senior spot. Although her Boomer colleagues are offering their congratulations, Melissa finds herself feeling vaguely uneasy. She is reaching a point in her career where the path seems to be narrowing suddenly and precipitously. There look to be very few options for the next possible step. Her enthusiastic and supportive Boomer boss has presented the promotion as the next step on an inevitable path — her "final hurdle" before taking on his job.

"I'd better be cautious," she mused.

Why does Melissa feel uneasy?

I suspect her concerns stem from a desire to keep multiple options open. Many X'ers tend to be very wary of putting all their eggs in one corporate basket. They don't like to be pigeon-holed or pushed out on a limb of specialization — with the inherent danger of a whimsical corporation sawing that limb off behind them during the next restructuring. One of their highest priorities is keeping their options open and their skills diverse — to be as self-reliant as possible. And they don't like it when Boomers assume they're interested only in the "obvious" career path choice.

The genesis of these concerns lies in the experiences Melissa would have shared with other members of her generation when they were teens in the late '70s, '80s and early '90s, times of economic uncertainty and domestic social change.

X'ers' teen years were a time of major corporate restructuring. The psychological contracts between employers and employees, established through the '60s, were being ripped apart as large scale lay-offs accompanied the re-engineering and downsizing initiatives of the '80's. I think it's a safe assumption that there is no one in their 30s today who, as a teen, did not know some adult who was laid off from a corporation where he or she had planned to spend an entire career. The sense of unease when it comes to corporate commitments is an almost universally shared view among Generation X.

On the home front, many X'ers also lived through a significant shift in the social fabric. In the U.S., for the first time since war efforts, women entered the workforce in major numbers — mom was home for many X'ers when they were small and went to work during their teen years. Some of the impetus for women working outside the home came from rising divorce rates — during X'ers' teen years, divorce rates in the U.S. rose from 20% to 50%. They were first generation labeled "latch key kids" — home alone in the afternoons, leaning on their friends for companionship and support.

These teen experiences combined to leave most X'ers valuing self-reliance — and placing the ability to control their own destinies as a very high priority.

What steps might Melissa take to feel more comfortable?

For many X'ers, the fundamental mistrust of institutions is causing many to dream of leaving corporate life. Some of the most popular programs in MBA curricula today are, in fact, classes in entrepreneurship.

But those who stay in corporations can create broader options, as well. If you're feeling boxed in, begin by identifying at least six positions in the firm that you might like to hold in the future. For each, understand the skills, capabilities and experience that would be required to take on the position. Are there ways that you could gain some of these skills as part of your current role — perhaps through closer collaboration with another group in the company or volunteering to be part of task force? Is there a key skill that you'll need to gain through education? Most important, let the organization know that you'd like to develop your skills more broadly — and enlist support in achieving your goals.

Your preferences are likely to be different from those of the Boomers who held similar positions a few years ago. You need to play a role in helping the organization understand that your goals may be a bit different. Most corporations will be delighted to help you develop a broader set of skills — if they understand that's what you want. 

To change professional behaviors, move up in your organization and/or land a position contact:
CB Bowman, MBA, CMC, MCEC at Executive Leadership, LLC 908.509.1744 cb@exec-leadershipllc.com; http://www.exec-leadershipllc.com.

The Value in Conducting Thorough Background Checks on Executives By: Thomas Fox

Ed. Note-today we have a guest post by Scott Lane, President of the Red Flag Group.

Internet giant Yahoo! has now been forced to undertake another extensive search for a Chief

Executive Officer to help salvage its underperforming business. Today it was announced that

Scott Thompson would be stepping down from his recently appointed position at the

company in the wake of allegations surrounding the accuracy of his education record. The

scenario that Yahoo! is now in serves as a reminder to organisations of the importance of

conducting thorough background checks on new senior executive appointments as a means of

avoiding potential shareholder disputes and detrimental publicity.

Not long after Scott Thompson was appointed CEO of Yahoo! in January 2012, rumours

began circulating about the authenticity his academic credentials as detailed on his CV. Mr

Thompson’s CV listed an accounting and computer science degree from Stonehill College in

the United States. Daniel Loeb, the boss of the hedge fund Third Point who own 5.8% of

Yahoo!, claimed that Mr Thompson had not in fact graduated with a degree in computer

science. The discrepancy in Mr Thompson’s record was deemed to be the result of an

“inadvertent error” by Yahoo!. Mr Loeb initiated a number of inquiries on behalf of other

shareholders as to how Yahoo!’s vetting process had not picked up that Mr Thompson never

graduated with a degree in computer science.

This case divided opinion as to the seriousness of Mr Thompson’s misrepresentation,

particularly as his performances in previous roles had earned him considerable acclaim.

However, Yahoo! had exposed themselves to potential litigation by using Mr Thompson’s

degree information on regulatory filings, and the ongoing discussions about his background

continued to be a distraction from becoming established in his new role. So much so that the

decision has been made that Mr Thompson is to step down as CEO. Not only will Yahoo!

now have to undertake another expensive and time consuming search for his replacement, his

departure also comes at the expense of other existing directors who were responsible for his

employment. More so, over the past number of weeks Yahoo! has been the focus of

considerable media attention for all the wrong reasons, and its board’s reputation to make

decisions in the best interests of all stakeholders tarnished.

This is certainly not the first time a company has suffered the indignity of having to replace

senior executives. Last year the chief executive of InterContinental Hotels Group’s Asia-

Pacific operations, Patrick Imardelli, resigned after it was discovered that he had

misrepresented his academic record on his CV.

This issue could have been addressed if companies:

• Conducting a detailed background check to ascertain the overall accuracy of an

individual’s CV including all previous work and study credentials

• Detailed research into the person’s profile in International media in each of the

markets where they have lived, carried on business or managed people

• Interviews with other colleagues, business associates, and previous employers to

address the overall integrity of the person in all markets in which they have worked

• Interviews with the person to assess their understanding of compliance and legal risks,

their approach to ethical and integrity issues and their answers to a series of

hypothetical corporate situations posing ethical challenges and testing their responses

along the way

• The conducting of psychometric testing based on integrity issues to assess

independently the responses to certain situations

Background screening and integrity assessments should be an essential part of the hiring and

promoting process. This is important with all new employees, but even more so with those

moving into senior positions. The incident involving Mr Thompson will for some time

remain a blight against Yahoo! in the eyes of some of its shareholders, but they will no doubt

adopt screening measures to heavily scrutinise all candidates in the future. Whilst

undertaking extensive screening operations can be time consuming and costly, it is not as

damaging to an organisation as disharmony amongst shareholders when it is discovered that a

recently appointed individual’s credentials are false.

If you are looking to increase your income, move up in your organization or land a position contact:
CB Bowman, MBA, CMC, MCEC at Executive Leadership, LLC 908.509.1744 cb@exec-leadershipllc.com; http://www.exec-leadershipllc.com.

Legal Alert: EEOC Permits Transgendered Worker to Proceed with Title VII Claim By: Ford & Harrison LLP

[author: Carolyn Lam]

Executive Summary:  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently issued a decision stating that discrimination based on transgender status or gender identity constitutes sex discrimination under Title VII.  The decision allows transgendered individuals to file workplace discrimination charges with the EEOC.  See Macy v. Holder, Appeal No. 0120120821 (April 20, 2012).

Background:

Mia Macy, a transgender woman who presented as a man, had a telephone interview with the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' ("ATF's") Walnut Creek crime laboratory for an available position.  Macy was informed that the position was hers if she passed her background check. 

A few months later, Macy informed ATF's Director that she was transitioning from male to female.  Subsequently, ATF informed Macy the position she sought was no longer available because of budget cuts.  Macy later discovered that ATF had hired another individual for the position.

Macy filed a formal EEO complaint with the AFT, alleging discrimination on the basis of her sex, gender identity, and sex stereotyping.  The ATF's EEO office accepted Macy's complaint on the basis of sex and gender identity stereotyping.  However, the ATF refused to process her gender identity stereotyping claim under Title VII and EEOC regulations, stating that gender identity discrimination claims cannot be adjudicated by the EEOC.  Instead, the ATF stated that Macy's gender identity stereotyping claim would be processed under the ATF's "policy and practice."  Macy filed an appeal with the EEOC, arguing: (1) the EEOC had jurisdiction over her entire claim; and (2) by separating her claims into "sex discrimination" and "gender identity stereotyping," ATF had essentially dismissed her gender identity and transgender discrimination claims.

EEOC Determination:

In response to Macy's appeal, the EEOC found that claims of discrimination based on transgender status:  (1) are cognizable as sex discrimination claims under Title VII; and (2) may be processed as EEOC charges.

According to the EEOC, Title VII's definition of "sex" encompasses both biological differences and cultural and/or social aspects associated with males or females.  The EEOC cited to Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins in support of its determination that an employer discriminates on the basis of gender whenever it treats an employee differently for failing to conform to gender-based expectations.  490 U.S. 228 (1989).

The EEOC reversed the ATF's final decision declining to process Macy's entire complaint under Title VII and EEOC regulations and remanded the complaint to ATF's EEO office.

Employers' Bottom Line:

The EEOC's position on this burgeoning cause of action will lend strength to plaintiffs who seek to sue for gender identity-related claims of discrimination.  Employers can expect courts to cite to the EEOC's opinion when evaluating claims from transgendered employees and employees suing for sex-based stereotyping. 

If you have any questions regarding this Alert or other labor or employment related issues, please contact the author, Carolyn Lam, cnlam@fordharrison.com, who is an attorney in our Birmingham office, or the Ford & Harrison attorney with whom you usually work.


If you are looking to increase your income, move up in your organization or land a position contact:
CB Bowman, MBA, CMC, MCEC at Executive Leadership, LLC 908.509.1744 cb@exec-leadershipllc.com; http://www.exec-leadershipllc.com.