2013-06-19T23:01:24-04:00 Geraldine Gallacher http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=geraldine-gallacher Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Geraldine Gallacher Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3401451 2013-06-07T06:21:49-04:00 2013-06-07T08:31:18-04:00

Geraldine Gallacher http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geraldine-gallacher/
I think Arianna would agree with me that we need to get away from vertical analogies altogether when it comes to redefining career success. I suspect expressions like "Getting to the top" with its hierarchial, aspirant overtones doesn't cut the mustard with Gen Y women at all. The new zeitgeist favours concepts like collaboration, cooperation, doing something meaningful, flexibility. Everybody knows that women are better at collaborating and cooperating (OK maybe not on The Apprentice) and are particularly put off by the up or out cultures of old.

And so I can see why young women will be increasingly drawn to the idea of setting up their own company, becoming entrepreneurs. That way they can create a culture that reflects their own values. This would seem a quicker route to the kind of success that resonates with women rather than joining Corporate UK, often described as being "designed by men for men over half a century ago". Maybe the Third Metric (the new way of working described by Arianna in The Sunday Times on June 2nd) means having lots of female-centric satellite companies flexing around male-dominated corporate monoliths?

However, I'm pretty sure that young men would want to join the nimble satellites too. The film The Social Network showing Mark Zuckerberg inventing Facebook certainly inspired my 17 year old son to start dreaming up the next big internet idea and I'm sure he wasn't alone. Being an entrepreneur seems much sexier than joining a big company nowadays. So maybe the Third Metric involves a generational split? The new order is that you cut your teeth in the world of entrepreneurship (when still living at home and largely dependent on the Bank of Mum and Dad) and then get on the corporate ladder at 40+. By that time you'll be happy to have a more predictable career because you now own a property, have had your kids and still have a good 30 years of useful employment ahead of you. The law firms, accountancy firms and banks (particularly the banks) would do well to hire these experienced 40 somethings who make measured decisions based on worldly wisdom.

Risk taking would remain the preserve of the young "satelliters" who would innovate to their heart's content and leave the serious stuff to the wise corporate elders. Just imagine, the Banks run by sensible, wiser, older people, as many women as men....no more credit crunches....
Oh I do wish I was invited to Arianna's Third Metric Think Tank this Thursday. Hint. Hint.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2814786 2013-03-05T19:58:41-05:00 2013-05-05T05:12:01-04:00

Geraldine Gallacher http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geraldine-gallacher/
Meyer's HR department recently sent a memo effectively banning staff from working at home, saying that "speed and quality are often sacrificed when we work from home". The memo was swiftly doing the viral rounds, and has sparked vigorous reactions on both sides of the argument. Flexible working devotees came out in howls of protest. Alexandra Shulman, editor of British Vogue, for example sided strongly with Meyer in an article in The Guardian over the weekend.

As a long-time flexible worker myself, and the managing director of a specialist leadership and executive coaching organisation, I work alongside a team of similarly flexible consultants. For me this is not a question of either/or. Of course there are times when we need to meet in person and the kind of social interaction and information sharing that can occur in offices can be very beneficial, but to say that workers are unproductive at home is a myth.

My company coaches hundreds of women - mainly lawyers and bankers, granted, so definitely Type A personalities. Many of them work flexibly and if anything I worry that they overdo it at home because they feel 'privileged' to be able to work in that way. One young female lawyer, an aspiring partner and a new mother, described her day at home (or "missing in action" as one manager once described it as to me), saying how she made herself a packed lunch at breakfast time to take into her study so she could work solidly all day without leaving her chair!

That said, I'm certainly not advocating remote working for all, or for all of the time. One of my daughter's friends in her mid 20s has a well paid job as an analyst with complete autonomy over where she works. She goes into the office about one day a month. But she's leaving because it's not sociable enough. She sees an office environment as somewhere you go to socialise with others as well as work. Another associate lawyer I coach, who is fantastically grateful to be allowed to work from home a couple of days a week, finds that she isn't taking that up because she doesn't feel she can interrupt via email or phone her senior partners for advice. Whereas in the office she can doorstep them more easily to get a minute of their time. Anachronistic as this sounds, there's no doubt that she isn't alone in feeling that way. Many firms have a long way to go in changing their cultures for remote working to actually work. But I still don't think the problem is with flexible working. I still see it as a question of changing corporate cultures to catch up with the technology. Going backwards isn't the answer. In contrast to Yahoo, BT is trail blazing for telecommuting. BT encourages everyone to work from home, at least part of the time, which apart from being commercially sensible, given the nature of their business, is also proving very productive. BT has seen 20% increases in productivity from their infinitely more satisfied employees.

You could forgive Shulman for not getting with the flexi-programme. Vogue, one imagines, would be unlikely to be at the forefront of many trends in the workplace, other than sartorial ones of course, but Yahoo? Surely that's an own goal commercially for Meyer to discourage remote working?

I feel uncomfortable about the idea that graduates have to be chained to their desks for a couple of years just so they can absorb the super slick business practices of their baby boomer employers. Practices such as an over-dependence on having to physically see staff to believe that they are working? Or an inability to parcel up work into outputs so performance can be fairly measured? The office is not always the hotbed of efficiency that Meyer would like it to be. I think we baby boomers should get our younger Gen Y colleagues to show us what communication looks like in today's teched-up world.

My kids' ability to have packed social lives without seemingly planning anything is a mystery, not for them the constraints of Microsoft Outlook or even Doodle. No, they just text each other on the evening in question and sort of gravitate towards each other. Sounds trivial, but I'm sure that's something we could learn from. Too many senior people have diaries / schedules which are full up for the next couple of months. You can't help but wonder how anything that's not "meeting-shaped or meeting-worthy" like someone having a flash of inspiration and just needs a sounding board to make it into a good idea ever penetrates this wall of planned efficiency.

Flexible working demands mutual trust from both the employer and employee. Clearly much of that trust has evaporated at Yahoo. Successful flexible working also demands a new set of productivity measures, light years away from a traditional reliance on presenteeism. This debate is beset with crude stereotypes on both sides - the dull, time-serving office worker, with their jacket on the back of the chair; and the home worker in their pyjamas, surfing the internet with half an eye on daytime TV. Neither is accurate. One size does not fit all. Failure of either system to deliver productive results is a failure of management and trust, and not an inherent flaw. Perhaps I am being overly optimistic about everyone's motivation levels - or maybe I'm just spoiled by working with a team of extremely motivated, hard-working mothers that I trust completely!]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2654094 2013-02-09T17:16:22-05:00 2013-04-11T05:12:01-04:00

Geraldine Gallacher http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geraldine-gallacher/
When I picture the rate fixing going on I imagine a bunch of young men on the phone with their eight screens in front of them. They are all laughing and joshing with other men in other rooms full of men with lots of screens - there is a heady cocktail brewing:

1) Self interest - how can I profit out of this?
2) Ego - how can I come out on top?
3) Group think - everyone's at it so I need to be in the game

It reminds me of Friday evenings in my house when my 16 year-old has his mates around. Everything's a competition. PlayStation, music, football, general knowledge. The banter is competitive and it's cool to come out on top. Winning makes you popular. Men produce more testosterone when they are surrounded by other men. Testosterone encourages risk taking.

When my daughter has her friends around the vibe is VERY different. Showing off is decidedly uncool, sharing problems is de rigueur. Being openly competitive is looked at askance. Collaborating over homework can go on for hours.... and hours. Neither approach is right or wrong, but they both have clear advantages.

So I have a simple solution to avoid the next financial scandal whether it's CDOs or Libor - hire more women. I mean it. Seriously. Some of women's self-questioning, collaboration and prudence would act as a much needed balance to men's more gung-ho approach. Women are not risk-averse, but they are more prudent about it. A study by Leeds University looking into liquidation showed that, of their 11,000 sample companies, those companies where there were at least one or two women on the board were 20% less likely to go under. They put it down to women's prudent risk-taking strategies as well as their people management skills. A recent study compiled by Barclays Wealth Management shows that affluent, established female business owners in the UK are earning on average 14% more than their male counterparts. But, when you examine this more closely, what you see is the same sensible approach where women don't borrow as much for start ups and only start to pay themselves a lot once they have a proven financial record and the business is on very solid ground.

And if you think my simple solution all sounds a bit too flippant, or is devoid of regulatory technicality, just bear in mind that all organisations, from the smallest to the largest multinationals, are simply groups of people - and people tend to act far more on human instinct than they ever will on rules and regulations.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2247721 2012-12-05T18:32:48-05:00 2013-02-04T05:12:01-05:00

Geraldine Gallacher http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geraldine-gallacher/
Indeed I was alerted to some research on the topic of creatives in the industry by Gail Parminter, the Creative Director of Madwomen, which specialises in doing creative work for female products. (Great name too, I have to say). A tiny percentage of adverts are actually created by women. Even female personal hygiene products often get their straplines and jingles from the boys!

I assumed that the fabulous Mad Men TV show about Madison Avenue advertising agencies in the 60s, where Don Draper struts his stuff and the downtrodden Peggy Olsen slowly claws her way up from humble secretary to copywriter, was a thing of the past. It turns out that whilst the constant smoking and drinking in the office has abated, the lack of diversity certainly hasn't.

Over 80% of creatives in the advertising industry are men and only 3% of creative directors are female. According to the research, it's got something to do with humour. Men and women find men funnier and so, if you're a female in a group of men pitching a funny idea, they tend not to laugh. Best to give the idea to the men and have them pitch it for you, a bit like Peggy does in Mad Men.

My focus on advertising led me to consider the representation of women in media, old media that is. The Guardian did some research (Women in Journalism) where they measured how many front page news stories were written by men and lo and behold it turns out that 78% of front page news stories are written by men. The research also looked at the photographs on the front page and there was about a 50/50 split between men and women, but the most commonly featured women were the Duchess of Cambridge and her sister Pippa Middleton. Even when more serious women were there, such as Angela Merkel, they were always shown in slightly ridiculous poses - having a bad hair day for example. Broadcast media does not fare too well either. 72% of Question Time contributors are men and 84% of reporters and questions on the Today programme are men.

Advertisers know only too well that this kind of coverage is highly influential, "The Hidden Persuaders" to quote Vance Packard. So, the subliminal message is that women get noticed when they are pretty princesses or slightly dotty looking politicians. And when it comes to the serious issues that make it onto TV well there are hardly any women there at all.

Lest this turns into a bit of a feminist rant, I must end by saying that I am hopeful that new media is different, with the advent of citizen journalism encouraging many women to have their voices heard. The Huffington Post certainly seems to have more than its fair share of women bloggers. Long may it continue, and here's hoping next year's IPA Census shows another shift at the top.

So, Madmen, look out, the Madwomen are coming!]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2121374 2012-11-13T19:00:00-05:00 2013-01-13T05:12:01-05:00

Geraldine Gallacher http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geraldine-gallacher/
When the vote was delayed, I could almost hear the collective sigh of relief in many UK boardrooms. That relief came from women as well as men. As a non-executive director of a plc myself, I'm often asked my opinion on the subject. Fellow female non-execs worry that their efforts to get where they have on merit would be undermined if less capable women were drafted in, merely to make up the numbers.

Personally, I feel conflicted on the debate. Part of me agrees that artificially shoe-horning women into roles they might not be suited for could be very damaging to the perception of women's effectiveness on boards. This is bound to happen because the pipeline below the board does not have enough women in it to achieve 40% females on boards overnight, or even by 2020 as Ms Reding wishes, and so some candidates simply won't be right.

But another part of me wonders how much of a disaster this could possibly be? When I was asked to join a board I was arguably under-qualified for the position and guess what, I just learned the ropes. I might not have had the full depth of CV to warrant the appointment but instead there was a board that was willing to take a risk. I also think that my contribution is valued and does differ because I am a woman.

A 2010 Harvard study showed that women were much more likely to focus on clear communication to employees, prioritise customer satisfaction and consider diversity and CSR. This corresponds to my own contribution, perhaps with an additional smattering of calling out the board on its own dynamics thrown into the mix. My point is that some of those skills / areas of interest have been with me since the beginning of my career and haven't come about from masses of experience coming up through the ranks. If boards insist on impressive CVs as a passport to the board then there will never be enough women on boards.

I am acutely aware that I am a non-executive director and that boosting the number of female non-execs is an easy, low risk way of making up the numbers. The real issue is how do you boost executive directors. In a way, I think the solution is the same. Take a risk. It is well known and acknowledged that women don't put themselves forward until they're 120% ready, whereas men will 'have a go' with much less relevant experience. Boards, headhunters and HR need to accommodate this risk averse behaviour and compensate for it. Ironically, there is much research demonstrating that boards with at least one woman on them are less likely to go bankrupt (in addition to the considerable body of evidence showing how ROI and ROCE is higher with women on the board too). This is due to women's more cautious or prudent approach, and so the very trait that is holding them back from gunning for higher positions is actually the trait that boards could benefit from.

An additional problem is that not enough women aspire to be on boards. This is not a function of their lack of ambition, it's a reflection of how little being on a board appeals to them. Women certainly don't lack leadership traits but they are pragmatic and if the playing field doesn't look level they aren't going to spend too much time complaining about it and instead go off and find new playing fields in which they can lead in a way that's true to themselves. To borrow a male analogy from a recent 30% Club commentator "Why would you want to be given a free season ticket to Arsenal if you are a Chelsea supporter?" Quite!

The fact that the higher echelons of power are unattractive to women is to the detriment of society as a whole. It's not just corporate life that suffers from a lack of balanced decision making, it's the same in academia, law, health and elsewhere. So maybe we need to re-frame the debate to encompass the broader community rather than restricting it to boards.

What is clear is that merely sticking to the status quo will achieve little in progressing gender balance in the boardroom. Regulatory nudges have helped, with FTSE 100 boardrooms having risen to around 17% women, but something more forceful will be required to get anywhere near 40%. The British government's goal currently is to have a minimum of 25% women on FTSE boards by 2015. Commentators feel the likely outcome is that the 40% quota will become an objective, not a legally binding requirement. It is unclear though whether the EU would be able to impose sanctions on any company failing to meet that target. Whatever the outcome, UK businesses will need to take more considered risks, looking beyond traditional CVs, to get a stronger representation of women onto their boards in both executive and non-exec positions, and so benefit from the varied and valuable perspectives we bring.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2091973 2012-11-08T07:56:25-05:00 2013-01-08T05:12:01-05:00

Geraldine Gallacher http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geraldine-gallacher/
There is no doubt that women have to operate in a narrower band of behaviours to be palatable at work. Dominant behaviour, whilst seen as a desired leadership trait in a man, can be interpreted as aggressive or shrill behaviour in a woman. Emotional behaviour in a man gets described as sensitive, but is seen as weak in a woman. There is a real double bind here for women. If they behave in a stereotypically male fashion then that might get them to the top, but it's hard for these women to gain followers. Other women don't aspire to be like them and it actually puts more junior women off climbing the career ladder because they feel that the atmosphere at the top is likely to be fairly noxious. And conversely, if women use more stereotypically female behaviours the chances are that they will be seen as good support staff but not really 'leadership material' because they are not dominant enough.

So many women that I coach are trying desperately to hide their emotions in business, largely because men find them uncomfortable and they are thus labelled as unprofessional. There is a whole body of literature and associated training out there to help women 'play the game' more effectively. Nice Girls Don't Get the Corner Office is a good example of the genre. Courses are targeting women to help them to develop male traits, notably around assertiveness and resilience. The recent Board Babe blog in The Telegraph is a perfect example of trying to fight fire with fire. The Board Babe deals with an onslaught of macho, aggressive put-downs with her own sassy, equally macho comebacks. I strongly disagree with this 'fix the women' style of approach. Rather than women feeling like they should act more like men, my experience of coaching both men and women is that women's generally more collaborative style and more prudent approach to risk appears to chime closer with the particular demands of today's workplace. I much prefer to help women find their own leadership signature which may well embrace emotionality. As human beings, both men and women are emotionally wired and making our feelings known to others can be a much faster and more powerful method of influence. I think authenticity is the key here. When genuinely held emotion is used in an authentic and considered manner, the results can be surprisingly positive and effective. Women need to own their emotionality more. It's part of what makes us tick.

Returning to Gillard's empassioned speech, there has been an interesting postscript to it. Gillard's approval rating rose significantly in the first opinion poll held since then. The poll showed that her personal standing had improved among both men and women. Her disapproval rating had also dropped. Poll findings also show Gillard 10 points clear of Abbott in terms of preferred leader. As the pollsters point out, it is hard to attribute Gillard's poll success purely to her speech, but it certainly looks like it has done her little harm. This is in spite of mainstream media in Australia generally having been critical of the speech. Social media on the other hand largely sided with the prime minister, something subsequently reflected in the poll results. In the end, the speaker resigned anyway and so Julia Gillard didn't win the battle, but I think she may have holed her opposite number under the waterline and may go on to win the war - to use a mixed, and dare I say it, quite male, metaphor!]]>