# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The year 1777 was not a particularly good time for America's newly formed revolutionary army. Under General George Washington's command, some 11,000 soldiers made their way to Valley Forge. Following the latest defeat in a string of battles that left Philadelphia in the hands of British forces, these tired, demoralized, and poorly equipped early American heroes knew they now faced another devastating winter.

Accelerate your career with Harvard ManageMentor®. HBR Learning's online leadership training helps you hone your skills with courses like Leading People. Earn badges to share on LinkedIn and your resume. Access more than 40 courses trusted by Fortune 500 companies.

What you need to know about being in charge.

Learn More & See All Courses

# data[].attributes.headline
Madam C.E.O., Get Me a Coffee - NY Times

# data[].attributes.subject
Madam C.E.O., Get Me a Coffee - NY Times

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Madam C.E.O., Get Me a Coffee (Published 2015)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The sad reality in workplaces: Women help more but benefit less from it.

# data[].attributes.headline
How Your Body Language Shapes Who You Are - TED Talk

# data[].attributes.subject
How Your Body Language Shapes Who You Are - TED Talk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Your body language may shape who you are

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(NOTE: Some of the findings presented in this talk have been referenced in an ongoing debate among social scientists about robustness and reproducibility. Read “Corrections & Updates” below for more details as well as Amy Cuddy’s response.) Body language affects how others see us, but it may also change how we see ourselves. Social psychologist Amy Cuddy argues that “power posing” -- standing in a posture of confidence, even when we don’t feel confident -- can boost feelings of confidence, and might have an impact on our chances for success.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a culture where being social and outgoing are prized above all else, it can be difficult, even shameful, to be an introvert. But, as Susan Cain argues in this passionate talk, introverts bring extraordinary talents and abilities to the world, and should be encouraged and celebrated.

# data[].attributes.headline
How to build an enduring, multi-billion dollar business - Sarah Tavel

# data[].attributes.subject
How to build an enduring, multi-billion dollar business - Sarah Tavel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In my last post, I wrote that Uber built a multi-billion dollar business by using mobile to create a 10x better product than the incumbent (taxis), and did so at a lower price. The "and", as I wrote, is everything.

What's exciting to me is that Uber is not the first, nor will it be the last. Indeed, when you start to look for it, you realize "[10x product] and save people money" is the undercurrent running through dozens of breakout companies ranging from Airbnb to WhatsApp.

What's Amazon? Endless selection/convenience and the best price.

Remember Netflix's original marketing? More selection/convenience than your neighborhood Blockbuster, and no late fees.

Airbnb is all about unique accommodations and it'scheaper than a hotel.

Skype introduced presence/chat etc, and free international calls. WhatsApp did to international SMS what Skype did to international calls.

Alibaba, Craigslist, CreditKarma, eBay, Expedia, Poshmark, Priceline, Orbitz, Shutterfly, Transferwise, TurboTax, .... I could go on. (Oh, and if you're building one, I'd obviously love to hear from you: sarah at benchmark dot com.)

It shouldn't be a surprise that 10x + cheaper is such a killer combo for consumers. Who doesn't want something better, cheaper? It also happens to be a great catalyst for word of mouth. People love to talk about a new service they discovered that's better and saved them money - telling a friend how to save $20 can feel like actually giving the friend $20.

So how did they do it? Or perhaps more pointedly, how can you do it?

To me, there are two key ingredients:

1. It's about the [10x product]. Saving money is pouring gas on the fire.
As my former Pinterest colleague David Rubin pointed out to me, your service shouldn't lead with "saving money". You must create an offering that is so compelling, it stands by itself in the consumer's mind.

Case in point: when I first started to talk to people about my thesis, they'd push back. "Uber is just so much better than a taxi." "Amazon is all about convenience." "Airbnb is experiences you can't get at a hotel." Of course, they're right, but it's the "and" that accelerated the behavior change for most people. The 10x product is what kept those people as customers.

If you can get people to take your price advantage for granted, you've won. If on the other hand, your brand becomes more identified with saving money, then that's likely because your offering isn't sufficiently differentiated. Saving money is the feature. This puts incredible downward pressure on a company's unit economics. It's a lot harder to build an enduring business if you're forced to constantly optimize for price. Think: flash sale and deal sites.

The one exception I'd add here is that "free" is its own 10x product. If you can offer something for free that used to cost lots of people money (I'm looking at you Skype and Robinhood), growth will be the least of your worries.

2. Use technology to recast incumbent cost structures.
Okay, so you've got a 10x service. That's the easy part. Providing the 10x product cheaper in a sustainable way is where the rubber hits the road.

The key is to use technology to recast incumbent cost structures. This creates a structural cost advantage, and if you have economies of scale or network effects, an advantage that can endure as you grow.

Here are some of the strategies companies have used to do this:

E-Commerce

E-Commerce companies disrupted brick and mortar retailers by centralizing operations and benefiting from economies of scale.

Sharing economy

The "sharing" economy enables companies to unlock latent value in underutilized assets, and by doing so disrupts asset heavy approaches.

Peer to peer marketplaces

P2P marketplaces eliminate broker fees and middlemen, letting them pass savings to participants in their marketplace and reducing operation costs.

"Full stack" startups

More broadly, " full stack " startups use technology to fundamentally rethink services and disrupt the incumbents.

Emerging: AI, virtual reality, others?

Fast forward, and I've got to imagine that in addition to the existing techniques I mentioned, emerging technologies like AI and virtual reality will create a new class of 10x products that save consumers money.

For example, imagine not having to travel to the Serengeti because you can have an experience in virtual reality that's just like being on a safari, or getting a prescription almost immediately because you've been diagnosed by a neural network.

It's hard not to get excited for future startups capitalizing on these strategies.

What do you think? What emerging companies do you see doing this? I'd love to hear from you.

Follow me on Twitter @sarahtavel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to build an enduring, multi-billion dollar business

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In my last post, I wrote that Uber built a multi-billion dollar business by using mobile to create a 10x better product than the incumbent (taxis), and did so at a lower price. The "and", as I wrote...

# data[].attributes.headline
Bill Gross - A Devotion to New Ideas - Stanford Entrepreneurial Thought Leaders (podcast)

# data[].attributes.subject
Bill Gross - A Devotion to New Ideas - Stanford Entrepreneurial Thought Leaders (podcast)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bill Gross - A Devotion to New Ideas by Stanford eCorner

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bill Gross thrives on turning innovative ideas into pioneering companies. He serves as founder and CEO of Idealab, which started over 75 companies since 1996. In this stimulating lecture, he shares how Idealab continues to bring incredible ideas to market, and his personal insights on starting and running successful organizations. Gross also describes the work of eSolar, a spin-off company of Idealab that works to make solar energy cost-competitive in the global marketplace.

--------------------
Stanford eCorner content is produced by the Stanford Technology Ventures Program. At STVP, we empower aspiring entrepreneurs to become global citizens who create and scale responsible innovations.

CONNECT WITH US
Twitter: https://twitter.com/ECorner 
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/stanfordtechnologyventuresprogram/ 
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/StanfordTechnologyVenturesProgram/ 
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/ecorner 

LEARN MORE
eCorner Website: https://ecorner.stanford.edu/
STVP Website: https://stvp.stanford.edu/

Support our mission of providing students and educators around the world with free access to Stanford University's network of entrepreneurial thought leaders: https://ecorner.stanford.edu/give.

# data[].attributes.headline
15 signs you have emotional intelligence - World Economic Forum

# data[].attributes.subject
15 signs you have emotional intelligence - World Economic Forum

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dr Travis Bradberry looks at the qualities shared by people with emotional intelligence, based on data from more than a million people.

# data[].attributes.headline
Maya Angelou on Courage and Creativity - HBR

# data[].attributes.subject
Maya Angelou on Courage and Creativity - HBR

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Web Script Status 500 - Internal Error

500 Description:
An error inside the HTTP server which prevented it from fulfilling the request.

Message:
1029563689 Unable to render template [components/article/article.get.html.ftl]

Server:

Spring WebScripts - v8.29.0 schema 1,000

Diagnostics:
Inspect Web Script (components/article/article.get)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Web Script Status 500 - Internal Error 500 Description: An error inside the HTTP server which prevented it from fulfilling the request. Message: 1029563689 Unable to render template [components/article/article.get.html.ftl] Server: Spring WebScripts - v8.29.0 schema 1,000 Diagnostics: Inspect Web Script (components/article/article.get)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
'I'm busy,' signals you don't have room for friends; be specific or cut back your calendar

I recently asked a friend I haven't seen in months if she wanted to get together and catch up. I envisioned us gabbing over cocktails at the new Vietnamese restaurant in our neighborhood. Or maybe I could fix her dinner.

Her reply: "Sure. Why don't you stop by for 45 minutes to an hour on Monday night around 8:30."

Copyright ©2023 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
'I'm busy' signals you don't want to make room for friends or family. Be specific about what's really taking up your time or cut back your calendar.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Authentic Leadership | Niket Karajagi | TEDxKLSGIT

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Chronicle 's On Leadership video series explores various aspects of campus leadership with top executives and other movers and shakers across academe.

Hosted by Chronicle editors and reporters, the series explores trending and relevant topics in higher education. Watch as the University of Missouri's interim president, Michael A. Middleton, talks about how to bring stability to a system rocked by racial issues; and as Sweet Briar College's president, Phillip C. Stone, talks about how to save a campus. Other executives at institutions small and large discuss race, sexual assault, managing change, student activism, social media, crisis management, and much more.

Think your campus executive should be interviewed for On Leadership? Let us know.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Chronicle 's On Leadership video series explores various aspects of campus leadership with top executives and other movers and shakers across academe. Hosted by Chronicle editors and reporters, the series explores trending and relevant topics in higher education. Watch as the University of Missouri's interim president, Michael A.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Blog > Emotional Intelligence Is No Soft Skill

Despite a bevy of research and best-selling books on the topic, many managers still downplay emotional intelligence as a "touchy-feely" soft skill. The importance of characteristics like empathy and self-awareness is understood, sure. But intelligence and technical capability are seen as the real drivers of professional success. After all, a bit of coaching can help you navigate difficult conversations. And isn't interpersonal friction simply part of organizational life?

But evidence suggests quite the opposite: that high emotional intelligence (EI) is a stronger predictor of success. In fact, high EI bolsters the hard skills, helping us think more creatively about how best to leverage our technical chops.

A Key Differentiator for Your Personal Brand

When I co-teach the program Strategic Leadership, I ask participants to list the characteristics of a great mentor or role model and to classify each characteristic into one of three groups: IQ/smarts, technical skills, or emotional intelligence. Almost invariably, the majority of characteristics fall into the EI bucket.

In fact, emotional intelligence-the ability to, say, understand your effect on others and manage yourself accordingly-accounts for nearly 90 percent of what moves people up the ladder when IQ and technical skills are roughly similar.

Although many participants are surprised by the results, scientific research has proved the point. Daniel Goleman is the author and psychologist who put emotional intelligence on the business map. He found that, beyond a certain point, there is little or no correlation between IQ and high levels of professional success.

One needs above-average intelligence-which Goleman defines as one standard deviation from the norm or an IQ of about 115-to master the technical knowledge needed to be a doctor, lawyer, or business executive. But once people enter the workforce, IQ and technical skills are often equal among those on the rise. Emotional intelligence becomes an important differentiator (hear Goleman discuss his findings in this video on YouTube).

In fact, emotional intelligence-the ability to, for instance, understand your effect on others and manage yourself accordingly-accounts for nearly 90 percent of what moves people up the ladder when IQ and technical skills are roughly similar (see "What Makes a Leader" in the Harvard Business Review, January 2004).

Research has also demonstrated that emotional intelligence has a strong impact on organizational performance. Sanofi, the French pharmaceutical company, focused on the emotional intelligence skills of its sales force, which boosted annual performance by 12 percent (see the research by S. Jennings and B.R. Palmer in "Sales Performance Through Emotional Intelligence Development," Organizations and People, 2007). After Motorola provided EI training for staff in a manufacturing plant, the productivity of more than 90 percent of those trained went up (Bruce Cryer, Rollin McCraty, and Doc Childre: "Pull the Plug on Stress," Harvard Business Review, July 2003).

Emotional intelligence increases corporate performance for a number of reasons. But perhaps the most important is the ability of managers and leaders to inspire discretionary effort-the extent to which employees and team members go above and beyond the call of duty.

The core of high EI is self-awareness: if you don't understand your own motivations and behaviors, it's nearly impossible to develop an understanding of others. A lack of self-awareness can also thwart your ability to think rationally and apply technical capabilities.

Individuals are much more inclined to go the extra mile when asked by an empathetic person they respect and admire. Although discretionary effort isn't endless, managers with low emotional intelligence will have much less to draw on. If an organization has a cadre of emotionally intelligent leaders, such discretionary efforts multiply.

The Bedrock of EI: Self-Awareness

The ability to be an emotionally intelligent leader is based on 19 competencies in four areas: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management.

The core of high EI is self-awareness: if you don't understand your own motivations and behaviors, it's nearly impossible to develop an understanding of others. A lack of self-awareness can also thwart your ability to think rationally and apply technical capabilities.

Two parts of the brain are constantly fighting for control. The neocortex is the cognitive center, where our IQ and working memory reside. On average, in a normal emotional state, the neocortex can process a factorial of four variables, which is 24 possible interrelationships.

Adeptly handling multiple variables is central to performing important tasks such as developing a strategy, improving a complicated process, setting priorities, understanding consequences, and gleaning keen insights from data and information.

The amygdala is the feeling side of the brain, our emotional center. As the part of our brain concerned with our survival, it responds 100 times faster than the neocortex. Such responsiveness is particularly useful when confronted with a potentially threatening situation.

But because it can be triggered by both real and perceived threats, we can fall into the trap of imagining the worst before we have all the facts. How many of us, when faced with a rumor of layoffs, are quick to envision the worst-case scenario before we learn the truth?

When Emotions Hijack Our Ability to Reason

When the feeling side or our brain is triggered, it hijacks our cognitive system. With the slightest provocation, our ability to apply reason and logic can drop by 75 percent. Thus, instead of handling 24 interrelationships, we may suddenly be able to cope with only two. We may start to see only in black and white, in binary frameworks like yes or no, right or wrong, and win or lose.

Using questions instead of statements can also help managers and leaders avoid triggering emotional hijacks in others. Our feeling mind wants to sense that we are included, autonomous, competent, valued, respected, and safe.

Throughout a work day, there are numerous emotional triggers: an e-mail from a superior saying "We need to talk," a comment made by a colleague with a hidden agenda, even a funny look from someone important in the office.

It can take us nearly 20 minutes to recover from an emotional encounter. If the feelings are frequently retriggered, we can end up spending significant amounts of time with little ability to leverage our technical capability and inherent intelligence.

Focus on Understanding Rather Than Judgment

So how can we speed up our recovery? It's important to stop and turn our attention from the emotional to the physical. Physical activity such as taking a walk or going for a drink of water reduces the amount of adrenaline and cortisol flowing through the body.

Once the body is calmed physically, we need to seek information and determine if the threat is real and, if so, what we can do to address it. Ask yourself whether an issue will matter in six minutes, six days, six weeks, six months, or six years. Questions engage your curiosity-your neocortex. Statements, however, imply judgment, triggering the feeling side of the brain.

If someone is habitually late to meetings, for example, asking yourself why that is the case will lead to a more productive conversation about the issue than stewing on the statement: "I can't stand the fact that he is always late."

It is easy to consign emotional intelligence to the periphery of work life and concentrate on smarts and know-how. However, such a focus will likely hamper success.

Using questions instead of statements can also help managers avoid triggering emotional hijacks in others. Our feeling mind wants to sense that we are included, autonomous, competent, valued, respected, and safe. Something as simple as asking, "Can you tell me more about how you came to that conclusion?" or "What information would be helpful for you?" is far less likely to trigger an emotional hijack than statements such as, "I don't completely agree" or "I'm worried about what is happening."

It is easy to consign emotional intelligence to the periphery of work life and concentrate on smarts and know-how. But such a focus will likely hamper success. It can leave us without the most important differentiator for our personal brands. And an inability to manage ourselves severely constrains our capacity to use hard skills such as the technical competence that we have worked so hard to master.

By the same token, a command of emotional intelligence is a proven differentiator in the competitive climb up the corporate ladder. By inspiring others, emotionally intelligent leaders can ignite discretionary effort on the part of their teams to boost productivity and spur higher levels of employee engagement that comes from a strong company morale.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Emotional Intelligence Is No Soft Skill | Harvard Professional Development | Harvard DCE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Blog > Emotional Intelligence Is No Soft Skill Despite a bevy of research and best-selling books on the topic, many managers still downplay emotional intelligence as a "touchy-feely" soft skill. The importance of characteristics like empathy and self-awareness is understood, sure. But intelligence and technical capability are seen as the real drivers of professional success.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Self-awareness has been cited as the most important capability for leaders to develop, according to the authors of "How To Become a Better Leader," which was published in the MIT Sloan Management Review . Successful leaders know where their natural inclinations lie and use this knowledge to boost those inclinations or compensate for them.

A study also found that self-awareness impacts companies' bottom line. In a study of the stock performance of 486 publicly traded companies, Korn/Ferry International found that companies with strong financial performance tend to have employees with higher levels of self-awareness than poorly performing companies.

Yet self-awareness seems to be in short supply among leaders. While women in executive-level management positions tend to exhibit more self-awareness than men in the same positions, the overall percentages suggest there is much opportunity for growth in this area. In a study of 17,000 individuals worldwide, the Hay Group Research found that 19 percent of women executives interviewed exhibited self-awareness as compared to 4 percent of their male counterparts. Here are some tips on how to be more self-aware:
Knowing You
The one constant factor in all your endeavors is you; understanding yourself is therefore paramount.

Dr. Travis Bradberry, author of Emotional Intelligence 2.0 , self-awareness as one of the core components of emotional intelligence. He defines emotional intelligence as your ability to recognize and understand emotions in yourself and others, and your ability to use this awareness to manage your behavior and relationships.

Self-awareness is empowering because it arms you with knowledge and enables you to make better choices - to change or grow. Here are four strategies to increase your self-awareness:
Identify External Factors
Identify what factors, triggers, or indicators - both negative and positive - prompt others' behaviors toward you. Why do you do the things you do, and how do others respond? How do you respond in turn, and why do you react the way you do? What is the impact of culture on your perspective and others' perceptions?
Gather Trusted Feedback
Feedback leads to empathy and helps you understand the impact of your actions on others. One of the key indicators of low self-awareness is being unaware of personal blind spots -traits or aspects that may limit the way you act, react, behave, or believe, and in turn, limit your effectiveness.
Consider the Circumstances
Think about when to utilize a personality trait to your advantage and when it's best to leave it on the sidelines. According to the MIT study, most self-aware CEOs learned to identify their "outlier tendencies" and adjusted their behavior in order to change the way they were perceived. They didn't undergo an entire personality overhaul; rather, they learned how to be themselves but "with more skill." The executives considered which business or social situations required their personality traits (for example, extraversion or openness) and which did not.
Assess Behaviors in Light of Your Values and Priorities
Do you observe patterns in your behaviors? Assess those patterns in light of what is important to you, what drives you, and who you want to be. Be honest in assessing competing priorities. Are there tendencies that you'd like to change? Are there factors you'd like to add to the equation? The best outcome of self-awareness is to figure out what makes you great and be more of it. Continually add to that list, refine it, and build on it. Conversely, seek to be less of what negatively impacts you, those around you, and your desired outcomes.
Stay Curious
Our inclinations, fueled by our culture, backgrounds, and experiences, influence who we are, but we are responsible for who we continually become. New circumstances can also create new triggers or lead to different reactions. Stay curious, and don't stop seeking to understand yourself.
Chinwe Esimai is Managing Director and Chief Anti-Bribery Officer at Citigroup, where she oversees the firm's global anti-bribery program. She was born in Nigeria and is passionate about inspiring immigrant women leaders. She shares leadership insights for immigrant women at Ellevate Network is a global women's network: the essential resource for professional women who create, inspire and lead. Together, we #InvestInWomen. chinweeesimai.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Great Leadership Starts With Self-Awareness

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Self-awareness seems to be in short supply among leaders.. Stay curious, and don't stop seeking to understand yourself.

# data[].attributes.body
Authentic leadership

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the last 10 years, authenticity has become the gold standard of leadership. This is a sea change from 2003 when I wrote Authentic Leadership. Back then, many people asked what it meant to be authentic.

Authentic Leadership was intended as a clarion call to the new generation to learn from negative examples like Enron, WorldCom and Tyco. In it, I defined authentic leaders as genuine, moral and character-based leaders:

"People of the highest integrity, committed to building enduring organizations ... who have a deep sense of purpose and are true to their core values who have the courage to build their companies to meet the needs of all their stakeholders, and who recognize the importance of their service to society."

Authentic leaders demonstrate these five qualities:

1. Understanding their purpose

2. Practicing solid values

3. Leading with heart

4. Establishing connected relationships

5. Demonstrating self-discipline

The following year the Gallup Institute and Professor Bruce Avolio, a well-known leadership scholar at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, organized a definitive conference on authentic leadership in which the importance of leaders' life stories became paramount.

In spite of widespread acceptance of authentic leadership -- or perhaps because of it -- several authors have recently challenged the value of being authentic, claiming it is an excuse for being locked into a rigid view of one's leadership, being rude and insensitive, refusing to change, or not adapting to one's style to the situation. These arguments appear to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes an authentic leader. Recommendations that leaders should accept narcissism, embrace their inner jerk, or focus on themselves will not work in the long-run.

In light of this public discussion, it's important to rediscover authentic leadership as well as examine some of the recent mischaracterizations of it.

Authentic leadership is built on your character, not your style. My mentor Warren Bennis said, "Leadership is character. It is not just a superficial question of style. It has to do with who we are as human beings and the forces that shaped us.

Style is the outward manifestation of one's authentic leadership, not one's inner self. To become authentic leaders, people must adopt flexible styles that fit the situation and capabilities of their teammates. At times, authentic leaders are coaches and mentors, inspiring others and empowering their teammates to lead through the most important tasks without a great deal of supervision. At other times, authentic leaders must make very difficult decisions, terminating people and going against the will of the majority, as required to meet the situational imperative. These difficult actions can be taken while still retaining their authenticity.

Authentic leaders are real and genuine. You cannot " fake it till you make it" by putting on a show as a leader or being a chameleon in your style. People sense very quickly who is authentic and who is not. Some leaders may pull it off for a while, but ultimately they will not gain the trust of their teammates, especially when dealing with difficult situations. The widespread adoption of LinkedIn, Google and increasingly networked communities means that every leader has the informal equivalent of a "Yelp" score that will come to light. If people see their leaders as trustworthy and willing to learn, followers will respond very positively to requests for help in getting through difficult times.

Authentic leaders are constantly growing. They do not have a rigid view of themselves and their leadership. Becoming authentic is a developmental state that enables leaders to progress through multiple roles, as they learn and grow from their experiences. Like superior performances in athletics or music, becoming an authentic leader requires years of practice in challenging situations.

Authentic leaders match their behavior to their context, an essential part of emotional intelligence (EQ). They do not burst out with whatever they may be thinking or feeling. Rather, they exhibit self-monitoring, understand how they are being perceived, and use emotional intelligence (EQ) to communicate effectively.

Authentic leaders are not perfect, nor do they try to be. They make mistakes, but they are willing to admit their errors and learn from them. They know how to ask others for help. Nor are authentic leaders always humble or modest. It takes a great deal of self-confidence to lead through very difficult situations.

Authentic leaders are sensitive to the needs of others. One author has postulated, and I paraphrase, "What if your real self is a jerk?" People are not born as jerks, nor does this behavior reflect their authentic selves. Rather, these individuals likely had very negative experiences early in their lives that cause them to have difficulty in managing their anger, in part because they feel like victims or feel inadequate.

Situations like these indicate the importance of processing one's crucibles: people need not feel like victims or stuff their experiences deep inside themselves. Rather, by understanding themselves and reframing their experiences, they can find the pearl inside that represents their authentic selves. That's why exploring who they are and getting honest feedback from their colleagues are essential elements of becoming authentic leaders. That's what Starbucks' Howard Schultz did in coping with the severe challenges of his youth. It is also what made the difference for Steve Jobs when he returned to Apple nine years after his 1986 termination.

For all these reasons, authentic leaders constitute the vast majority of people chosen today for the key roles in business and nonprofits. Their emergence as the predominant way of leading has resulted from all we have discovered about leadership in the past decade.
A Human-Centered Approach to Leadership Development
My 2007 book, True North, showed people how they could develop themselves as authentic leaders. Whereas Authentic Leadership was based on my personal experiences in leading, True North was built on field research drawn from in-person interviews with 125 leaders. With 3,000 pages of transcripts, it remains as the largest in-depth study of leaders ever conducted, based on first-person interviews.

Having examined the literature containing more than 1,000 studies of leaders, most of which employed third-person approaches of observations and questionnaires, our research team concluded that learning directly from these leaders about what was important to them and how they had developed would give us much richer insights than prior studies. Indeed, this proved to be the case, as we discovered the paramount importance of leaders' life stories and the crucibles they had faced. We also learned from them how people develop into authentic leaders.

In our research, we embraced the richness of understanding leadership as a fully human endeavor. This approach built upon the pioneering work of Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers, Douglas McGregor, Daniel Goleman and Warren Bennis. True North assembled this developmental process in an original approach that enabled people to develop themselves as authentic leaders.
In order to see how leadership has changed in the past decade, we initiated research in 2014 that focused on 47 new leaders who were more global and diverse than the original cohort. We also followed up on 90 leaders featured in True North to see how they have fared since their 2005-06 interviews. With only a couple of exceptions, we learned these leaders had remained true to their authentic selves, and had performed very well in myriad roles.

This research led to my new book, Discover Your True North, which profiles 101 leaders and describes how they developed. It also draws heavily upon classroom experiences in the Authentic Leadership Development courses at Harvard Business School, where 6,000 MBAs and executives have participated in this developmental process.

Most significantly, we learned that authentic leaders are constantly growing and learning from their leadership experiences. By taking on new challenges, they become more effective as authentic leaders. When they find themselves in entirely new situations, authentic leaders draw upon their true selves, what they have learned in past life experiences, especially their crucibles, and they learn from their new colleagues. This enables them to become more effective as leaders. This approach is similar to Stanford's Carol Dweck's "growth mindset."

If you want to be an authentic leader and have a meaningful life, you need to do the difficult inner work to develop yourself, have a strong moral compass based on your beliefs and values, and work on problems that matter to you. When you look back on your life it may not be perfect, but it will be authentically yours.
Bill George is the author of Discover Your True North, a senior fellow at Harvard Business School, and former chair and CEO of Medtronic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Does Authentic Leadership Really Mean?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the last 10 years, authenticity has become the gold standard of leadership. This is a sea change from 2003 when I wrote Authentic Leadership. Back then, many people asked what it meant to be authentic. Authentic Leadership was intended as a clarion call to the new generation to learn from negative examples like Enron, WorldCom and Tyco.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Balancing ideals of servant leadership with authoritative guidance may be a better management approach.

Hemera Technologies/AbleStock.com/Getty Images

One of the most crucial aspects of running a business is choosing an effective leadership model to help ensure success. The servant leadership model has become an increasingly popular choice in recent years because it focuses on meeting the needs of employees and empowering them to do their best work. First developed by Robert K. Greenleaf in 1970, the model rejects the traditional authoritarian stance of most business structures in favor of business owners who are empathetic and responsive to employee needs and are interested in both personal and professional growth. In a management setting, managers delegate tasks and provide constant support to team members through research, gathering supplies and continuing education.

Before adopting this style, however, it's important to understand the limitations of servant leadership.

Works Against Traditional Authority

One of the most obvious limitations of servant leadership is that leaders must be willing to give up absolute authority. This goes against the traditional workplace structure in which CEOs make all the decisions, communicate those decisions to subordinates, and receive credit when those decisions are implemented by the rank-and-file. One of the problems with servant leadership is that leaders must sublimate their egos. Servant leadership is all about giving credit to employees to help them exceed performance standards. It's difficult to find business owners willing to act selflessly in their pursuit of success, which is one of the servant leadership disadvantages.

Makes Employees Less Motivated

Another problem with servant leadership is that it may make employees less motivated, and they then produce poorer results over time. Servant leaders are naturally inclined to step in and fix problems when they occur, and this may include finishing a task that an employee failed to complete. But the more times a servant leader comes to the rescue, the less motivation this gives employees to work hard. When employees believe their manager will step in to take care of any needs they have or to resolve issues that arise, they are more tempted to sit back and exert less effort in their daily tasks. A loss of motivation and productivity is one of the major limitations of servant leadership.

Decreases Managerial Authority

You can't discuss servant leadership disadvantages without acknowledging that putting the needs of your employees first can lead to a minimization of the authority of the overall management function in your business. When employees see their managers catering to their needs in an extreme manner, they are less likely to view those managers as authoritative figures. Moreover, when senior management wants middle and low-level managers to push employees to achieve better performance, it becomes challenging for servant managers to step back into a more dominant role. Business leaders can't simply model empathy and understanding without also trying to establish some type of authority that establishes the distinction between boss and employee.

Doesn't Fit Every Business

There are other problems with servant leadership, namely the fact that one size doesn't fit all. In other words, not every business benefits from this type of approach. Establishing a successful servant leadership system takes time, because it requires a commitment to developing your staff and promoting personal and professional growth. Businesses that are undergoing changes in the work culture will not respond well to servant leadership because the lack of stability makes it difficult for managers to implement this system. This is especially true when well-meaning managers worry more about the feelings of their employees rather than their needs. When managers care too much about hurting an employee's feelings, they tend to be reluctant to make difficult decisions or to provide honest critiques of job performance. Business owners must take a hard look at their organizational structure to determine if these servant leadership disadvantages are worth the benefits of this approach.

About the Author

Sampson Quain is an experienced content writer with a wide range of expertise in small business, digital marketing, SEO marketing, SEM marketing, and social media outreach. He has written primarily for the EHow brand of Demand Studios as well as business strategy sites such as Digital Authority.

Photo Credits

Hemera Technologies/AbleStock.com/Getty Images

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Problems With the Servant Leadership Model

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The servant leadership model has become prominent in early 21st century businesses. In general, servant leadership means the leader of a group leads by example and provides direct support to his subordinates. In a management setting, it means the manager of a work group or department delegates tasks to the group and ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I want you to think about the people who have been leaders in your life. One of the interesting things about the people who lead us, whether they are good leaders, poor leaders, or indifferent leaders is the fact we learn from all of them. Some teach us how to lead while others have the place of showing us how not to lead. So, what makes the difference in a strong leader and a weak one? Is it personality? Skill sets? The level of life experience they possess? While all of these are indeed factors there is one overriding metric that sets apart strong leaders from weak ones: the best leaders have a developed and well-thought out approach for leading others. While this may seem apparent it's been my experience that most people who come into their first leadership opportunities often lead from a reactive state instead of a proactive state. What I mean by this is some fall into a trap of letting things happen on their own, only stepping in to "fix" something, and when they do they tend to handle it in ways that they have seen their prior leaders handle situations.

Most have not begun to think through an overarching approach on how they will lead people to influence the organization. One can get by for a while like this but it qualifies less as actual leadership more as simply managing situation to situation. True leadership is the ability to affect change and influence in people and organizations. A coach needs a game plan. A general needs a plan of attack. Someone running for office needs a platform. If one is truly going to effectively lead others than one needs a proactive thought process to approach it. An effective and developed leadership approach positions a person for true leadership and becomes the defining factor for true influence.

First, it's important to define your leadership philosophy.

So if one is to choose an approach for leadership, an operating system so to speak, then what is the most effective one? What types of leadership approaches are out there from which to choose? There are many strategies out there as a quick look at any book list on leadership will demonstrate. These books, overall, define and offer strategies for influence. That's getting the cart before the horse. Before deciding on a strategy it's vital to define your leadership philosophy. This is different from a leadership strategy in that a strategy is more about the "how" you lead while a philosophy provides the important "why" you lead.

A leadership philosophy is an overarching thought process that sets the attitude toward how one views leadership. Without a philosophy it's impossible to develop an aligned strategy for influence. Is leadership the chance to guide processes and achieve goals or is it the chance to develop people? Is success determined by bottom lines or by the character of the organization? These are the type of philosophical questions one has to consider. I believe in the end there are really only two overall philosophies in leadership: the positional philosophy and the servant model philosophy. One has to know where they fall in this belief before they adopt a strategy for their leadership.

"Do as I say because I am in charge" works for a babysitter, but has no place in organizations.

The core of the positional philosophy would be simply stated as one leads because one is in charge. This is an ancient approach and was rather pragmatic in societies where there were those who had power and those who never would. Order was kept as long as everyone did as they were told. This, of course, makes perfect sense to a society where power and authority is passed down among the same groups of influential people (the "haves") with the others (the "have nots") never being provided the chances to move up. In today's society the positional philosophy, although still practiced, is not tenable and not a recipe for long-term success. "Do as I say because I am in charge" works for a babysitter but has no place in organizations.

The servant philosophy, as one would guess, centers not on positional authority but instead on the concept of leading by investing in and developing others to self-lead. This may ultimately culminate in them becoming better leaders of others in order to grow them for future opportunities or it simply may be helping followers better self-manage themselves in their current work. Either way, the one who leads from this philosophy sets up for a win in the long run. This, as a philosophy, is also an ancient one but really has only seen traction in organizations in the past couple of decades. Robert Greenleaf, the person to whom the phrase "servant leadership" is attributed sums it up the difference in one who puts themselves first as a leader and a servant leader in this way:

The best test, and difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants?

Not only is this a wise approach to develop, it also has long term pay-offs. There is much data to suggest that those who practice a servant leader philosophy are more highly regarded and more productive than those who practice other approaches. Beyond even the benefits of productivity, being a servant leader is the right thing to do.

Seek to grow those whom you lead.

Putting others first should be the foundational peg in any leadership philosophy. Seek to grow those whom you lead. A true practice of this will grow not only organizations but also communities and societies. This, of course is what Jesus teaches his followers throughout his ministry. Key to this is what he shared with his disciples in Mark 10:43-45:

On the contrary, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be a slave to all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life-a ransom for many.

Positional philosophies promote entitlement and pride. Servant leader philosophies seek to honor the gifts and abilities of others.

In these words every Christ-follower should find the basis for their philosophy on leadership, one of service and humility. Positional philosophies promote entitlement and pride. Servant leader philosophies, to the contrary, seek to honor the gifts and abilities of others. The servant leader understands they are in the place of stewarding the people they are entrusted to lead, preparing others to lead and contribute in their own ways someday. All of us are better for having someone in our lives like that and I challenge you to be that person for those whom you have the opportunity to lead.

Next: Adopting a Servant Leader Strategy: Three Practices of a Healthy Servant Leader.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How To Develop Your Personal Leadership Philosophy - Impact 360 Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I want you to think about the people who have been leaders in your life. One of the interesting things about the people who lead us, whether they are good leaders, poor leaders, or indifferent leaders is the fact we learn from all of them. Some teach us how to lead while others have the...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Creative Tools for Collaborative Leadership | Judy Brown | TEDxGreatMills

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As human beings, we love to judge things. When something is presented to us, our brain starts to search for that judgment - is this good or bad? Right or wrong? Better or worse than other options? It helps us to make sense of the information we have in front of us to make decisions and take the right next step.

And because we don't check our humanity at the door when we get to the office, we bring these sensibilities to work with us, continually assessing and reassessing our experiences and our actions to figure out the best way to achieve our goals. What's the right way to run a meeting? The right way to manage employees? The right way to communicate? The right way to have tough conversations? In some contexts, this works quite well and leads to an understanding of the most effective and ineffective ways to approach different situations. However, there are a few areas where applying these types of judgments might actually hinder your progress. Leadership style is one of those things. Judging an approach to leadership as good or bad, right or wrong, better or worse may not help to undercover the true leadership potential that exists because every behavior can be both a strength or a weakness depending on how it's used.
A primer of leadership approaches.
There are many ways you can think about the different leadership styles that exist, but one of the most effective is to go back to a tried and true behavioral model that can be applied in many different types of situations: The DISC Model. Created a century ago by Harvard Psychologist William Marston ( yes, the same person that invented Wonder Woman!), DISC is a straightforward tool that allows us to classify different styles of behavior and apply them in different ways as a means of understanding strengths, challenges, and motivations. Applying it to leadership style looks a little something like this:

Individuals with a Dominant leadership style will be perceived as being commanding, bold, results-driven, and charismatic. This is someone who is in charge and whose style is most closely associated with executives and CEOS - they make decisions quickly, present assertively and full of confidence, and they get things done. They also come across very unemotionally, impatient, and aren't known for caring about the mental well being of the people they are working with.

Individuals with the Influencer leadership style are the team's cheerleader. They are very active leaders, love for projects to move at a fast-pace and are not afraid to go after the big, bold ideas. But they are also much more affirming than those with the Dominant style, valuing their social relationships with their team members and a collaborative environment the enables a shared sense of accomplishment when a project is successful. They can also be a bit impulsive, disorganized and (because they love to move on to the next bold idea) can tend to lack follow-through.

Individuals with the Steady leadership style are commonly referred to as servant leaders. They are humble and put the needs of their team members first and create an inclusive, stable environment in which team members feel genuinely appreciated, listened to, cared for, and respected. On the flip side, because they are so accommodating they may hesitate to embrace new ideas that would rock the boat, and can sometimes be perceived as the people who are afraid of change.

Individuals with the Conscientious leadership style are the more precise, analytical of the bunch. This is a style that loves digging into the data to logically understand the nuanced complexities of the situation and will always value the quality of execution the more than the speed of delivery, even if that slows new initiatives down to a crawl. And because of this detail orientation, they can overanalyze situations and can often be overly critical of themselves and the people they work with, creating a challenging interpersonal dynamic.

Everyone has leadership potential.
No single person will encompass all four of these styles naturally. Most people will find that they either fit into one of those categories quite nicely, or they may be a combination of two of the different styles in which they sometimes act like one style, and sometimes act like the other. But regardless of where you fall, you can see from these brief descriptions that every single approach has things they do really well, and every approach has things that get in their way from being their most effective. In fact, you might even think the best leader might come from a combination of all four of these approaches!

And you'd be exactly right. The key to successful leadership does not come from following one textbook approach or even defaulting to the thing that you find most comfortable or convenient. It comes from understanding what will best serve the goal you and your team are shooting for and adapting your approach to what will best serve the situation. Sometimes that's being the commanding dominant who takes charge. Sometimes that's being the cheerleader and lifting everyone's spirits. Sometimes that's about rolling up your sleeves and doing whatever you can to help out the team. And sometimes that's about knowing that it's okay to slow things down to achieve a higher level of quality. There is no "best" or "right" way to be a leader that applies to all situations. Instead, organizations need leaders who can embrace all of the different styles, knowing when to use each approach and when to switch gears.

Now, here's the really good news: No matter which style you are, you can do anything that any other style can do. This is where the critics of work and personality assessments get it wrong - they think it puts people into boxes that they are not expected to deviate from. In fact, self-mastery of your natural style does just the opposite. Once you know what your box is, you can make the decision to step out of it and into another box! But you have to be willing to make yourself uncomfortable in the process.

Our work style is our comfort zone - these are the things we do by default without really thinking about it as if you were running on auto-pilot. But if we agree that the best approach comes from combing all four of the leadership styles discussed, and being selective based on the needs of the situation, that means you will be required to step outside of your comfort zone to do it.

For example, if you prefer a fast-pace but you're in a situation that calls for you to slow things down, that will feel uncomfortable to you. Or, if you take a more commanding approach, but your team really needs a pep talk, giving that pep talk will feel really uncomfortable. Or if you tend to be a more reserved leader, but the situation needs you to take command and make a fast decision, that will feel really uncomfortable.

But just because something feels uncomfortable doesn't mean you can't do it. It just means that you have to push through the discomfort and do it anyway, knowing that it will enable you to achieve your greatest leadership triumph.

Pushing outside of your comfort zone is no easy task. The best way to get started is to love and embrace that natural leadership style that you bring to work with you each day, with all of its strengths and its glorious flaws. Never look at another person and say "I wish I were more like them" or "they are a much better leader than I am." Instead, tell yourself that you simply approach things differently, and you have strengths where they have weaknesses. Pushing outside your comfort zone and doing the really tough stuff gets a lot easier when you appreciate all that you already have going for you, knowing that you're not worse off than anyone else. And then just go for it - embrace your discomfort as part of the process of growth. Every single time you try something new, it will get a little easier and before you know it, you'll be doing things that you never would have imagined yourself doing before.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What's The Best Leadership Style At Work? The One That Pushes You Outside Your Comfort Zone

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As human beings, we love to judge things. When something is presented to us, our brain starts to search for that judgment - is this good or bad? Right or wrong? Better or worse than other options? It helps us to make sense of the information we have in front of us to make decisions and take the right next step.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Since entering the labor force in 2002, I have worked for ten different employers. The majority of my employers had male leaders (CEOs, CFOs, Presidents, etc), but I fortunately I also had four female superiors (one manager and three directors) whom mentored me and developed me into an efficient, approachable and driven employee. My professional goal is to obtain a human resources director position, but as I prepare to re-enter the labor force in the next couple of months I am pondering: do my chances of being selected for leadership positions differ from those of my male colleagues or will the decision be based fairly on my situational and style approach as a leader?

In his book Leadership, Paul Northouse indicates that leadership styles involve a person's directive behavior and supportive behavior to influence others (2016, p.94). Directive behaviors help people accomplish their goals by setting deadlines and demonstrating how to fulfill certain tasks and supportive behaviors help people "feel comfortable about themselves, their co-workers and the situation" (Northouse, p.94). Leadership styles are further explained in the SLII model, which consists of leadership style and development level of followers (Northouse, p.94). The SLII model organizes leadership styles into four categories of directive and supportive behaviors (Northouse, p.94). My first female boss, Christina, had a directive style, which was high-directive and low-supportive style (Northouse, p. 94). Christina's leadership style taught me to communicate effectively with her so I could complete all of the tasks she assigned me, which taught me how to manage my time and meet deadlines. Because my human resources roles were all different, my other three female leaders (Kathy A., Jane and Kathy S.) used a coaching approach with me, which was high-directive and high-supportive style (Northouse, p. 94). Kathy A., Jane and Kathy S. communicated their goals with me weekly and requested that I follow up with them throughout my assignments so that they could clarify any objectives or responsibilities. Development level of followers is the second part of the SLII model, which analyzes how competent and committed followers are (Northouse, p.96). I believe my four female leaders classified me into the D3 category as having medium to high competence and variable commitment (Northouse, p.96) Unlike my professional experiences, what if women cannot demonstrate their leadership style because consideration for leader roles vary-from the selection process to the performance process- between men and women? Are women then forced to behave in a certain way or possess a specific style to be chosen as a leader?

In the Journal of Applied Behavior Science titled Women and Leadership: Selection, Development, Leadership Style and Performance, researchers used selection, development, leadership style and performance, to delve into the experiences of female leaders throughout the leadership process (Gipson et al., p. 33). Leadership style is described by using Blake and Mouton's definition as being "two intersecting axes" associated with tasks and interactions with people (Gipson et al., p. 43). Transformational and transactional styles are also mentioned to described leaders whom inspire and "intellectually challenge their followers" (transformational leader) and have "corrective and critical interactions with employees" (transactional) (Gipson et al., p. 43). Research found the women are more likely to engage in a relational approach to work than men and they are expected to present themselves in a more modest way (Gipson et al., p. 44). Women leaders we also rated as better at developing and inspiring others as well as building relationships and teamwork than males (Gipson et al., p. 44). Researchers, however, determined that there is no "one style fits all" (Gipson et al., p. 48) for a leader as leadership responsibilities and expectations differ greatly based on a company's mission and goals. Because company standards, norms and expectations for leadership roles will vary based on industry and other factors, the possibility of me obtaining a leadership role will differ from those of my male colleagues. I may also experience gender discrimination instead of having a leadership decision be based fairly on my situational and style approach, but that will not deter me from focusing on accomplishing my goals nor prevent me from helping my followers feel comfortable with themselves, each other and the situations we encounter. I will become a leader and my leadership style and situational approach will demonstrate my success.

References:

Gipson, A., Pfaff, D., Mendelsohn, D., et al. (2017). Women and Leadership: Selection, Development, Leadership Style, and Performance. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 53 (1) p.32-65. Columbia University, New York, NY.

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since entering the labor force in 2002, I have worked for ten different employers. The majority of my employers had male leaders (CEOs, CFOs, Presidents, etc), but I fortunately I also had four female superiors (one manager and three directors) whom mentored me and developed me into an efficient, approachable and driven employee.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Chapter 1: Leadership for the 21st Century

Chapter 2: Diversity and Leadership

Chapter 3: Paradigms for Diversity Leadership

Chapter 4: Leader Identity

Chapter 5: Leadership Style

Chapter 6: Organizational Contexts

Chapter 7: Societal Contexts of Leadership

Chapter 8: Applications-Training Culturally Competent and Diverse Leaders

Chapter 9: Applications: Training Culturally Competent Organizations

Chapter 10: Developing a Paradigm of Diversity Leadership

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Chapter 1: Leadership for the 21st Century Chapter 2: Diversity and Leadership Chapter 3: Paradigms for Diversity Leadership Chapter 4: Leader Identity Chapter 5: Leadership Style Chapter 6: Organizational Contexts Chapter 7: Societal Contexts of Leadership Chapter 8: Applications-Training Culturally Competent and Diverse Leaders Chapter 9: Applications: Training Culturally Competent Organizations Chapter 10: Developing a Paradigm of Diversity Leadership

# data[].attributes.body
Histo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many CEOs who make gender diversity a priority-by setting aspirational goals for the proportion of women in leadership roles, insisting on diverse slates of candidates for senior positions, and developing mentoring and training programs-are frustrated. They and their companies spend time, money, and good intentions on efforts to build a more robust pipeline of upwardly mobile women, and then not much happens.

The problem with these leaders' approaches is that they don't address the often fragile process of coming to see oneself, and to be seen by others, as a leader. Becoming a leader involves much more than being put in a leadership role, acquiring new skills, and adapting one's style to the requirements of that role. It involves a fundamental identity shift. Organizations inadvertently undermine this process when they advise women to proactively seek leadership roles without also addressing policies and practices that communicate a mismatch between how women are seen and the qualities and experiences people tend to associate with leaders.

A significant body of research (see "Further Reading") shows that for women, the subtle gender bias that persists in organizations and in society disrupts the learning cycle at the heart of becoming a leader. This research also points to some steps that companies can take in order to rectify the situation. It's not enough to identify and instill the "right" skills and competencies as if in a social vacuum. The context must support a woman's motivation to lead and also increase the likelihood that others will recognize and encourage her efforts-even when she doesn't look or behave like the current generation of senior executives.

"Who Will Lead and Who Will Follow? A Social Process of Leadership Identity Construction in Organizations," by D. Scott DeRue and Susan J. Ashford (Academy of Management Review, October 2010)

"Women and Leadership: Defining the Challenges," by Robin J. Ely and Deborah L. Rhode ( Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice, Harvard Business Press, 2010)

"Impossible Selves: Image Strategies and Identity Threat in Professional Women's Career Transitions," by Herminia Ibarra and Jenifer Petriglieri (Insead working paper, 2007)

"Negotiating in the Shadows of Organizations: Gender, Negotiation, and Change," by Deborah M. Kolb (Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 2013)

"Taking Gender into Account: Theory and Design for Women's Leadership Development Programs," by Robin J. Ely, Herminia Ibarra, and Deborah Kolb (Academy of Management Learning & Education, September 2011)

The solutions to the pipeline problem are very different from what companies currently employ. Traditional high-potential, mentoring, and leadership education programs are necessary but not sufficient. Our research, teaching, and consulting reveal three additional actions companies can take to improve the chances that women will gain a sense of themselves as leaders, be recognized as such, and ultimately succeed. (This article expands on our paper "Taking Gender into Account: Theory and Design for Women's Leadership Development Programs," Academy of Management Learning & Education, September 2011.)

Becoming a Leader

People become leaders by internalizing a leadership identity and developing a sense of purpose. Internalizing a sense of oneself as a leader is an iterative process. A person asserts leadership by taking purposeful action-such as convening a meeting to revive a dormant project. Others affirm or resist the action, thus encouraging or discouraging subsequent assertions. These interactions inform the person's sense of self as a leader and communicate how others view his or her fitness for the role.

As a person's leadership capabilities grow and opportunities to demonstrate them expand, high-profile, challenging assignments and other organizational endorsements become more likely. Such affirmation gives the person the fortitude to step outside a comfort zone and experiment with unfamiliar behaviors and new ways of exercising leadership. An absence of affirmation, however, diminishes self-confidence and discourages him or her from seeking developmental opportunities or experimenting. Leadership identity, which begins as a tentative, peripheral aspect of the self, eventually withers away, along with opportunities to grow through new assignments and real achievements. Over time, an aspiring leader acquires a reputation as having-or not having-high potential.

The story of an investment banker we'll call Amanda is illustrative. Amanda's career stalled when she was in her thirties. Her problem, she was told, was that she lacked "presence" with clients (who were mostly older men) and was not sufficiently outspoken in meetings. Her career prospects looked bleak. But both her reputation and her confidence grew when she was assigned to work with two clients whose CFOs happened to be women. These women appreciated Amanda's smarts and the skillful way she handled their needs and concerns. Each in her own way started taking the initiative to raise Amanda's profile. One demanded that she be present at all key meetings, and the other refused to speak to anyone but Amanda when she called-actions that enhanced Amanda's credibility within her firm. "In our industry," Amanda explains, "having the key client relationship is everything." Her peers and supervisors began to see her not just as a competent project manager but as a trusted client adviser-an important prerequisite for promotion. These relationships, both internal and external, gave Amanda the confidence boost she needed to generate ideas and express them forthrightly, whether to colleagues or to clients. Her supervisors happily concluded that Amanda had finally shed her "meek and mild-mannered" former self and "stepped up" to leadership.

Effective leaders develop a sense of purpose by pursuing goals that align with their personal values and advance the collective good. This allows them to look beyond the status quo to what is possible and gives them a compelling reason to take action despite personal fears and insecurities. Such leaders are seen as authentic and trustworthy because they are willing to take risks in the service of shared goals. By connecting others to a larger purpose, they inspire commitment, boost resolve, and help colleagues find deeper meaning in their work.

Integrating leadership into one's core identity is particularly challenging for women, who must establish credibility in a culture that is deeply conflicted about whether, when, and how they should exercise authority. Practices that equate leadership with behaviors considered more common in men suggest that women are simply not cut out to be leaders. Furthermore, the human tendency to gravitate to people like oneself leads powerful men to sponsor and advocate for other men when leadership opportunities arise. As Amanda's story illustrates, women's leadership potential sometimes shows in less conventional ways-being responsive to clients' needs, for example, rather than boldly asserting a point of view-and sometimes it takes powerful women to recognize that potential. But powerful women are scarce.

Despite a lack of discriminatory intent, subtle, "second-generation" forms of workplace gender bias can obstruct the leadership identity development of a company's entire population of women. (See the sidebar "What Is Second-Generation Gender Bias?") The resulting underrepresentation of women in top positions reinforces entrenched beliefs, prompts and supports men's bids for leadership, and thus maintains the status quo.

Research has moved away from a focus on the deliberate exclusion of women and toward investigating "second-generation" forms of gender bias as the primary cause of women's persistent underrepresentation in leadership roles. This bias erects powerful but subtle and often invisible barriers for women that arise from cultural assumptions and organizational structures, practices, and patterns of interaction that inadvertently benefit men while putting women at a disadvantage. Among them are:

A paucity of role models for women.

Aspiring leaders need role models whose styles and behaviors they can experiment with and evaluate according to their own standards and others' reactions. Fewer female leaders means fewer role models and can suggest to young would-be leaders that being a woman is a liability-thus discouraging them from viewing senior women as credible sources of advice and support.

Gendered career paths and gendered work.

Many entrenched organizational structures and work practices were designed to fit men's lives and situations at a time when women made up only a very small portion of the workforce. For one example, formal rotations in sales or operations have traditionally been a key step on the path to senior leadership, and men are more likely than women to have held such jobs. Yet requirements like these may be outdated when it comes to the kinds of experience that best prepare a person to lead. For another, career- enhancing international posts often assume a "trailing spouse" who has no career and can easily move-a family situation much more common for men than for women. How work is valued may similarly give men an advantage: Research indicates that organizations tend to ignore or undervalue behind-the-scenes work (building a team, avoiding a crisis), which women are more likely to do, while rewarding heroic work, which is most often done by men. These practices were not designed to be discriminatory, but their cumulative effect disadvantages women. A vicious cycle ensues: Men appear to be best suited to leadership roles, and this perception propels more of them to seek and attain such positions, thus reinforcing the notion that they are simply better leaders.

Women's lack of access to networks and sponsors.

Informal networks are a precious resource for would-be leaders, yet differences in men's and women's organizational roles and career prospects, along with their proclivity to interact with others of the same gender, result in weaker networks for women. They cite as a major barrier to advancement their lack of access to influential colleagues. Moreover, the connections women do have tend to be less efficacious: Men's networks provide more informal help than women's do, and men are more likely to have mentors who help them get promoted. Meanwhile, men in positions of power tend to direct developmental opportunities to junior men, whom they view as more likely than women to succeed.

Double binds.

In most cultures masculinity and leadership are closely linked: The ideal leader, like the ideal man, is decisive, assertive, and independent. In contrast, women are expected to be nice, caretaking, and unselfish. The mismatch between conventionally feminine qualities and the qualities thought necessary for leadership puts female leaders in a double bind. Numerous studies have shown that women who excel in traditionally male domains are viewed as competent but less likable than their male counterparts. Behaviors that suggest self-confidence or assertiveness in men often appear arrogant or abrasive in women. Meanwhile, women in positions of authority who enact a conventionally feminine style may be liked but are not respected. They are deemed too emotional to make tough decisions and too soft to be strong leaders.

The three actions we suggest to support women's access to leadership positions are (1) educate women and men about second-generation gender bias, (2) create safe "identity workspaces" to support transitions to bigger roles, and (3) anchor women's development efforts in a sense of leadership purpose rather than in how women are perceived. These actions will give women insight into themselves and their organizations, enabling them to more effectively chart a course to leadership.

Educate Everyone About Second-Generation Gender Bias

For women.

More than 25 years ago the social psychologist Faye Crosby stumbled on a surprising phenomenon: Most women are unaware of having personally been victims of gender discrimination and deny it even when it is objectively true and they see that women in general experience it.

Many women have worked hard to take gender out of the equation-to simply be recognized for their skills and talents. Moreover, the existence of gender bias in organizational policies and practices may suggest that they have no power to determine their own success. When asked what might be holding women back in their organizations, they say:

"It's nothing overt. I just feel less of a connection, either positive or negative, with the guys I work with. So sometimes I seem to have difficulty getting traction for my ideas."

"I look around and see that my male colleagues have P&L responsibility and most of us are in staff roles. I was advised to make the move to a staff role after the birth of my second child. It would be easier, I was told. But now I recognize that there is no path back to the line."

"My firm has the very best intentions when it comes to women. But it seems every time a leadership role opens up, women are not on the slate. The claim is made that they just can't find women with the right skill set and experience."

These statements belie the notion that gender bias is absent from these women's work lives. Second-generation bias does not require an intent to exclude; nor does it necessarily produce direct, immediate harm to any individual. Rather, it creates a context-akin to "something in the water"-in which women fail to thrive or reach their full potential. Feeling less connected to one's male colleagues, being advised to take a staff role to accommodate family, finding oneself excluded from consideration for key positions-all these situations reflect work structures and practices that put women at a disadvantage.

In Practice

Leadership Interview

An interview with Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg.

Without an understanding of second-generation bias, people are left with stereotypes to explain why women as a group have failed to achieve parity with men: If they can't reach the top, it is because they "don't ask," are "too nice," or simply "opt out." These messages tell women who have managed to succeed that they are exceptions and women who have experienced setbacks that it is their own fault for failing to be sufficiently aggressive or committed to the job.

We find that when women recognize the subtle and pervasive effects of second-generation bias, they feel empowered, not victimized, because they can take action to counter those effects. They can put themselves forward for leadership roles when they are qualified but have been overlooked. They can seek out sponsors and others to support and develop them in those roles. They can negotiate for work arrangements that fit both their lives and their organizations' performance requirements. Such understanding makes it easier for women to "lean in."

For women and men.

Second-generation bias is embedded in stereotypes and organizational practices that can be hard to detect, but when people are made aware of it, they see possibilities for change. In our work with leadership development programs, we focus on a "small wins" approach to change. In one manufacturing company, a task force learned that leaders tended to hire and promote people, mainly men, whose backgrounds and careers resembled their own. They had good reasons for this behavior: Experienced engineers were hard to find, and time constraints pressured leaders to fill roles quickly. But after recognizing some of the hidden costs of this practice-high turnover, difficulty attracting women to the company, and a lack of diversity to match that of customers-the company began to experiment with small wins. For example, some executives made a commitment to review the job criteria for leadership roles. One male leader said, "We write the job descriptions-the list of capabilities-for our ideal candidates. We know that the men will nominate themselves even if they don't meet all the requirements; the women would hold back. Now we look for the capabilities that are needed in the role, not some unrealistic ideal. We have hired more women in these roles, and our quality has not suffered in the least."

In another case, participants in a leadership development program noticed that men seemed to be given more strategic roles, whereas women were assigned more operational ones, signaling that they had lower potential. The participants proposed that the company provide clear criteria for developmental assignments, be transparent about how high potential was evaluated, and give direction as to what experiences best increased a person's potential. Those actions put more women in leadership roles.

Create Safe "Identity Workspaces"

In the upper tiers of organizations, women become increasingly scarce, which heightens the visibility and scrutiny of those near the top, who may become risk-averse and overly focused on details and lose their sense of purpose. (In general, people are less apt to try out unfamiliar behaviors or roles if they feel threatened.) Thus a safe space for learning, experimentation, and community is critical in leadership development programs for women.

Consider performance feedback, which is necessary for growth and advancement but full of trip wires for women. In many organizations 360-degree feedback is a basic tool for deepening self-knowledge and increasing awareness of one's impact on others-skills that are part and parcel of leadership development. But gender stereotypes may color evaluators' perceptions, subjecting women to double binds and double standards. Research has amply demonstrated that accomplished, high-potential women who are evaluated as competent managers often fail the likability test, whereas competence and likability tend to go hand in hand for similarly accomplished men. We see this phenomenon in our own research and practice. Supervisors routinely give high-performing women some version of the message "You need to trim your sharp elbows." Likewise, we find that participants in women's leadership development programs often receive high ratings on task-related dimensions, such as "exceeds goals," "acts decisively in the face of uncertainty," and "is not afraid to make decisions that may be unpopular," but low ratings on relational ones, such as "takes others' viewpoints into account" and "uses feedback to learn from her mistakes." We also frequently encounter women whose performance feedback seems contradictory: Some are told they need to "be tougher and hold people accountable" but also to "not set expectations so high," to "say no more often" but also to "be more visible," to "be more decisive" but also to "be more collaborative."

Creating a safe setting-a coaching relationship, a women's leadership program, a support group of peers-in which women can interpret these messages is critical to their leadership identity development. Companies should encourage them to build communities in which similarly positioned women can discuss their feedback, compare notes, and emotionally support one another's learning. Identifying common experiences increases women's willingness to talk openly, take risks, and be vulnerable without fearing that others will misunderstand or judge them. These connections are especially important when women are discussing sensitive topics such as gender bias or reflecting on their personal leadership challenges, which can easily threaten identity and prompt them to resist any critical feedback they may receive. When they are grounded in candid assessments of the cultural, organizational, and individual factors shaping them, women can construct coherent narratives about who they are and who they want to become.

The Importance of Leadership Purpose

In a recent interview with members of Hillary Clinton's press corps, a veteran reporter noted, "The story is never what she says, as much as we want it to be. The story is always how she looked when she said it." Clinton says she doesn't fight it anymore; she just focuses on getting the job done.

How women are perceived-how they dress, how they talk, their "executive presence," their capacity to "fill a room," and their leadership style-has been the focus of many efforts to get more of them to the top. Voice coaches, image consultants, public-speaking instructors, and branding experts find the demand for their services growing. The premise is that women have not been socialized to compete successfully in the world of men, so they must be taught the skills and styles their male counterparts acquire as a matter of course.

To manage the competence-likability trade-off-the seeming choice between being respected and being liked-women are taught to downplay femininity, or to soften a hard-charging style, or to try to strike a perfect balance between the two. But the time and energy spent on managing these perceptions can ultimately be self-defeating. Overinvestment in one's image diminishes the emotional and motivational resources available for larger purposes. People who focus on how others perceive them are less clear about their goals, less open to learning from failure, and less capable of self-regulation.

Anchoring in purpose enables women to redirect their attention toward shared goals and to consider who they need to be and what they need to learn in order to achieve those goals. Instead of defining themselves in relation to gender stereotypes-whether rejecting stereotypically masculine approaches because they feel inauthentic or rejecting stereotypically feminine ones for fear that they convey incompetence-female leaders can focus on behaving in ways that advance the purposes for which they stand.

Focusing on purpose can also lead women to take up activities that are critical to their success, such as networking. Connections rarely come to them as a matter of course, so they have to be proactive in developing ties; but we also find that many women avoid networking because they see it as inauthentic-as developing relationships that are merely transactional and feel too instrumental-or because it brings to mind activities (the proverbial golf game, for example) in which they have no interest or for which they have no time, given their responsibilities beyond work. Yet when they see it as a means to a larger purpose, such as developing new business to advance their vision for the company, they are more comfortable engaging in it. Learning how to be an effective leader is like learning any complex skill: It rarely comes naturally and usually takes a lot of practice. Successful transitions into senior management roles involve shedding previously effective professional identities and developing new, more fitting ones. Yet people often feel ambivalent about leaving the comfort of roles in which they have excelled, because doing so means moving toward an uncertain outcome.

Second-generation gender bias can make these transitions more challenging for women, and focusing exclusively on acquiring new skills isn't sufficient; the learning must be accompanied by a growing sense of identity as a leader. That's why greater understanding of second-generation bias, safe spaces for leadership identity development, and encouraging women to anchor in their leadership purpose will get better results than the paths most organizations currently pursue.

A version of this article appeared in the September 2013 issue of Harvard Business Review.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Reprint: R1309C Even when CEOs make gender diversity a priority-by setting aspirational goals for the proportion of women in leadership roles, insisting on diverse slates of candidates for senior positions, and developing mentoring and training programs-they are often frustrated by a lack of results.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
6 min read

Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.
This Entrepreneur.com "Best Read" was originally posted Sept. 15, 2015.
The born-a-leader/become-a-leader argument that has carried on for decades is refreshed with each extraordinary leader who takes the stage. The rise of Bill Gates is no different in terms of debating the born/became conundrum. No one can say for sure if he was born to be a leader, but his life's work shows a pattern of actions that illustrate how he became a legend among historical business leaders.

Pursuing what he loves.

Gates was fascinated by computers when he was young and spent most of his time learning how to program. Although he wasn't a model student, Gates decided it was important to pursue what he was passionate about. That led to many breakthroughs in computers, including the programming language BASIC and, later the MS-DOS program for IBM. It was only a matter of time until his love for computers became the foundation for Microsoft.

If you have to work, make sure it is something you truly love doing. Don't get stuck in an industry that does not interest you. It's hard to imagine creating a strategy or inspiring others as a leader in an industry that just doesn't ignite a passion inside you. If you are just in it for the money, it will show. However, when doing what you love you can enjoy every day and want to go to work, but you are also more likely to become successful.
Related: Why You Should Pursue Your Dream Even If Nobody Encourages You
Working tirelessly.

Gates knew success doesn't happen overnight but is, and always will be, the culmination of a lot of hard work. Fueled by his passion, he spent years working from his garage, developing coding and programming, and learning how to create a solution with global reach. This took seemingly endless hours.

A leader gets in there and rolls his sleeves up because success it is not just about thinking up a good idea. Leadership requires action and the passion to put the effort into turning that good idea into a sustainable revenue machine. Even after Microsoft began gaining success, Gates worked long days and nights on understanding the target audience and developing the products that would speak to their business, education and consumer needs.

Looking forward.

No matter what happens, a legendary leader continues to look forward, unfazed by any barriers or missteps along the way. Despite Gates' phenomenal success, he did have to contend with anti-trust litigation claiming that Microsoft was a monopoly. In 2011, after a 21-year battle in the court system, the case was finally put to rest after numerous threats to break the company up. Throughout the battle, Gates continued to pursue the strategy that he had laid out and stayed the course, preferring to focus on the future rather than be distracted by present challenges. I recommend staying ahead of trends and not behind them.

Constantly evolving.

Gates has never been someone to simply be satisfied with the success he has achieved to date. As he has pointed out, "It's fine to celebrate success, but it is more important to heed the lessons of failure." He also reminded others: "Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning."

Gates never lets the Microsoft team become complacent, even when they held the market leader position and were achieving multi-billion dollar revenues.

A leader should not be static; they should dynamic. Gates has become a legend by continuing to evolve to stay relevant. He has always understood the market continues to shift in its needs and desires. Gates knew that Microsoft, to maintain its leadership position, had to continually reinvent itself, moving from just software packages for Office to a web browser and new enterprise solutions. He led the pursuit to diversify the Microsoft product line and ingrained that need in the organization's culture.

As Gates said, "We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten. Don't let yourself be lulled into inaction."
Related: Tony Hawk on the Importance of Constantly Evolving
Helping others by giving back.

An admirable leader has taken charge to help others by guiding them in the right direction, imparting knowledge, and experience, or even providing the necessary resources that will improve the lives or careers of others. Gates has always taken a selfless approach to his leadership, spending considerable money and time in philanthropic efforts to give to others. In return, as a leader, he receives happiness by knowing he is providing benefits that can create the leaders of the future who will then shape the planet for those generations to come.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has donated billions of dollars to causes all over the world, making significant differences in the lives of children and adults. This level of giving back illustrates Gates' character and focus on social responsibility as a global corporate citizen. It also shows that his pursuit of solutions and making life better went beyond just making a profit. Instead, it was about driving significant change in the world that would make a difference for those who need it the most. His legend status has now become more about what he has accomplished on a social level than business. As Gates noted, "As we look ahead into the next century, leaders will be those who empower others."

Lessons to be learned.

Leaders have always been viewed as fundamentally different from other people. There are many people who are smart, ambitious, and extroverted. However, it goes beyond these ingredients that may be part of a person's DNA.

For Gates, his parents encouraged him to think independently and provided a values system that encouraged hard work, ethics, consideration for others and determination. Gates leveraged this framework to become a legend based on the expert knowledge he pursued and collected, the emotional intelligence he developed, the passion he developed for industries and communities, the visionary ideas he proposed and executed on, the social network he created to mentor and exchange with others and the personal power he passed onto others.

His leadership style is often described as transformational and serves as a model for many of today's entrepreneurs who are just as determined, focused and passionate about what they are doing. Gates provides an excellent model of how transformational qualities can help create a successful leader, but he also proves that the individual human spirit that all makes us unique and the influence of parents and mentors also play a critical role in creating the legends.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Bill Gates Became a Leadership Legend

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
6 min read Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. This Entrepreneur.com "Best Read" was originally posted Sept. 15, 2015. The born-a-leader/become-a-leader argument that has carried on for decades is refreshed with each extraordinary leader who takes the stage. The rise of Bill Gates is no different in terms of debating the born/became conundrum.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Melinda Gates is best known as the wife of Microsoft founder, Bill Gates .

However, her lasting legacy will be her demonstration of incredible philanthropy work across the world.

The love she developed for computers and interactive media began at an early age.

She earned a bachelor's degree in computer science from Duke University in 1986 and followed it up with a master's in business administration the next year from Duke University's Fuqua School of Business.

Melinda began her career at Microsoft Corporation in 1987.

Some of her greatest accomplishments are the budget travel planning website Expedia, multimedia interactive encyclopedia Encarta, and the interactive movie guide Cinemania.

She first met Bill at a PC trade show in Manhattan in 1987 and began dating.

In 1994, they were married and had their first child two years later.

She became the co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation after it was established in 1999.

If you have ever enjoyed using a computer at a public library, it has been largely due to the efforts of Melinda Gates.

She feels it is important that every person have equal access to the internet and the research capabilities that improve learning.

She ultimately expanded the vision of the foundation to include addressing the prevalence of global poverty and health concerns.

Her honorable goals caught the attention of the wealthy investor Warren Buffet . He donated an astounding $30 billion dollars to the foundation in 2006.

Melinda Gates was extremely instrumental in expanding the focus of the foundation in 2011 to include global health, education, access to digital media at libraries, and supporting at-risk families in the Washington/Oregon state area.

The foundation has been involved in developing prevention, vaccines, and treatments for illnesses like malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS.

Melinda donated a staggering $560 million dollars in 2012 to improve access and availability of contraceptive products to women of third-world nations.

She made the list of Forbes Top 100 Powerful Women in 2013 and 2014 and was able to speak at the 2014 event in a room full of powerful women CEO's, executives, and business owners.

Melinda stressed that improving the lives of girls and women worldwide, " it's not enough to just talk about women and girls."

Also, during her speech, Melinda emphasized the need for everyone to be willing to use their voice, money, and networks to make a difference.

She said, "we have to be willing to stand up and say, 'I'm willing to fund some of these things.'"

Melinda Gates recently released the annual letter composed with her husband titled "Our Big Bet for the Future."

It gives an insight into ways she will be using her power, influence, and funding to change the current state of global poverty.

The plan is to diversify agriculture in areas that are desperately struggling with hunger and acute malnutrition.

This was followed closely on the heels of a $50 million dollar donation to fight the Ebola outbreak that devastated the continent of Africa in 2014.

Melinda Gates continues to be an influential role model providing access to life-preserving and changing services.

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (Overview of Grants)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Melinda Gates: Key Facts & Leadership Traits 2019 (MUST READ)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Melinda Gates is best known as the wife of Microsoft founder, Bill Gates . However, her lasting legacy will be her demonstration of incredible philanthropy work across the world. The love she developed for computers and interactive media began at an early age.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As businesses continue to globalise and the current generation of leaders starts to retire, organisations are presented with an opportunity to assess the leadership skills their new leaders will require in light of the ever-changing markets and geographies in which they now operate. Read on and find out how important cross-cultural skills are in today's corporate world.

Cross-cultural Skills to Enhance your International Management Skills

Emotional intelligence, people skills and flexibility - 3 key skills of future leaders

The Guardian released the findings of a study, run in conjunction with Cass Business School, which interviewed senior executives from a wide range of industries and geographies.

The study's findings showed that the most valued attributes identified for future leaders are:

Emotional intelligence

People skills

Flexibility

What about the Baby Boomers' leadership style?

Today's markets are demanding an understanding of how they truly work

The Baby Boomer generation's leadership style of strength, drive, competition, know-how, experience and a mastery of technical skills are very different to the skills expected of Generations X and Y.

In the early days, when fewer businesses were truly global, many Western businesses were able to manage expansion into international markets relying on their conventional leadership tools. These days have effectively come to an end, with ever more sophisticated markets demanding an understanding of how they truly work.
Markets are in constant change

Leaders will be required to be more collaborative, more culturally aware

Today's global markets are different, and they will continue to evolve and demand more. Leaders will need to change to be able to address the needs of these changing markets, consumers and employees.

They will be required to be:
International expansion demands cross-cultural skills

Senior executives were asked which three qualities they expected from future leaders - emotional intelligence, flexibility and people skills

With S&P 500 companies now seeing almost half of their revenues coming from outside the US, the need to understand global markets is no longer an option - it is a pre-requisite.

When senior executives were asked which three qualities they expected from future leaders, the majority cited:

1. Emotional intelligence

2. Flexibility

3. People skills

These three skills, traditionally regarded as more feminine leadership skills, reflect a more collaborative and collective style of leadership - regardless of the gender of the leader.
What does Generation X need to succeed as heirs to the current leadership?

70% of all respondents identified the need for cultural awareness and diversity training and coaching

According to the study, more than 70% of all respondents identified the need for cultural awareness and diversity training and coaching - especially as a way to understand and reflect the characteristics of global markets.

85% identified foreign language skills as important for leaders

In addition, more than 85% identified foreign language skills as important for leaders, including those at an executive level.

Organisations and their leaders looking to increase their businesses abroad and remain successful will truly need to think globally, act globally, speak globally .... and discover their 'feminine side'.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Future Leaders Need: Cross-Cultural Skills

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As businesses continue to globalise and the current generation of leaders starts to retire, organisations are presented with an opportunity to assess the leadership skills their new leaders will require in light of the ever-changing markets and geographies in which they now operate. Read on and find out how important cross-cultural skills are in today's corporate world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While the world is evolving, women are still lagging behind when it comes to leadership roles in business. Today, only 26 women are in CEO roles at Fortune 500 companies, making up 5.2% of the female population, according to a report by Pew Research . The stats stay virtually the same for women CEOs of Fortune 1000 companies at 5.4%, showing that there is little movement of women making up these high-ranking positions as company leaders.

With women still pushing to reach the top, they are faced with a range of challenges that many of their male CEO counterparts don't have an understanding of. It is these issues that are preventing many women from achieving their goal of becoming a leader at their company and diminishing their ability to get ahead in business.

Below, 15 members of share what the biggest challenges their female clients are currently facing and provide advice for women leaders everywhere.
1. Being Treated Equally 2. Building A Sisterhood 3. Generating Revenue 4. Being Confident 5. Speaking Up
It's not enough to be in a role or to sit at the table. One must also speak confidently, regardless of odds faced. Women leaders fear being ostracized or rejected; however, respect comes when one's voice is heard. I coach leaders to share their voice and perspective because it can help shape policy, the workforce and perspective. Make your presence known as a leader and collaborator for good. - LaKisha Greenwade , Lucki Fit LLC
6. Building Alliances With Decision-Makers 7. Becoming A Member Of The C-Suite 8. Asking For Money 9. Standing In Their Success 10. Tackling Imposter Syndrome 11. Overcoming Perfectionism
Many of the women leaders I coach get paralyzed by their perfectionist tendencies. I often recommend reflection for clients when they get really stuck. It might be a shorter pause, such as a few deep breaths or short meditation, or a longer activity like a walk, journaling exercise, or a Brené Brown book excerpt or TED Talk. All of these approaches have worked well to help manage perfectionism. - Jill Hauwiller , Leadership Refinery
12. Trusting Their Own Voice
In conversations with leaders, there is one recurring theme that haunts me. It is the virtually inaudible question I hear women asking themselves too often: "Who am I to...?" What I tell my clients is that right now, they are among the wealthiest, most educated and powerful women on the planet. They have not risen to their current title by accident. They must trust and use their own voice! - Susanne Biro , Susanne Biro & Associates Coaching Inc.
13. Shifting Their Word Choice 14. Dealing With Negative Thoughts
One of the biggest challenges my female clients face is they allow for the negative thoughts that arise in their mind to take control of their life. My advice for women everywhere is to take control of their thoughts by becoming consciously aware of them and to either replace them with more positive and encouraging thoughts or to accept them and decide to move forward despite them. - , Pam Ortiz International LLC
15. Re-Entering The Paid Workforce

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
15 Biggest Challenges Women Leaders Face And How To Overcome Them

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While the world is evolving, women are still lagging behind when it comes to leadership roles in business. Today, only 26 women are in CEO roles at Fortune 500 companies, making up 5.2% of the female population, according to a report by Pew Research .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A list of famous and influential women, including women's rights activists, poets, musicians, politicians, humanitarians and scientists.

A list of women in chronological order

Cleopatra (69 BCE-30 BCE) The last Ptolemaic ruler of Egypt. Cleopatra sought to defend Egypt from the expanding Roman Empire. In doing so she formed relationships with two of Rome's most powerful leaders, Marc Anthony and Julius Caesar.

Joan of Arc (1412-1431) The patron saint of France, Joan of Arc inspired a French revolt against the occupation of the English. An unlikely hero, at the age of just 17, the diminutive Joan successfully led the French to victory at Orleans. Her later trial and martyrdom only heightened her mystique.

Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797) English author, Wollstonecraft wrote the most significant book in the early feminist movement. Her pamphlet " A Vindication of the Rights of Women" laid down a moral and practical basis for extending human and political rights to women. She was a pioneer in the struggle for female suffrage.

Jane Austen (1775-1817)One of the most famous female authors of all time, Jane Austen wrote several novels, which remain highly popular today. These include Pride and Prejudice, Emma and Northanger Abbey. Jane Austen wrote at a time when female writers were not encouraged, helping pave the way for future writers.

Sojourner Truth (1797 - 1883) African-American abolitionist and women's rights campaigner. In 1851, gave a famous extemporaneous speech "Ain't I a woman?" which explained in plain language how women were equal to men.

Margaret Fuller (1810-1850) An American women's rights advocate. Her book Women in the Nineteenth Century (1845) was influential in changing perceptions about men and women, and was one of the most important early feminist works. She argued for equality and women being more self-dependent and less dependent on men.

Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811-1896) A lifelong anti-slavery campaigner. Her novel Uncle Tom's Cabin was a bestseller and helped to popularise the anti-slavery campaign. Abraham Lincoln later remarked that her books were a major factor behind the American civil war.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902) American social activist and leading figure in the early women's rights movement. She was a key figure in helping create the early women's suffrage movements in the US. She was the principal author of Declaration of Sentiments in 1848.

Susan B. Anthony (1820-1906) American Campaigner against slavery and for the promotion of women's and workers rights. She began campaigning within the temperance movement and this convinced her of the necessity for women to have the vote. She toured the US giving countless speeches on the subjects of human rights.

Clara Barton (1821-1912) - Barton was a pioneering nurse in the American civil war. She overcame stiff opposition to lead medical units close to the front lines. She was the founder president of the American Red Cross society and spent her life serving others in need. Barton was supportive of women's suffrage and broke many gender barriers during her lifetime.

Millicent Fawcett (1846-1929)A leading suffragist and campaigner for equal rights for women. She led Britain's biggest suffrage organisation, the non-violent (NUWSS) and played a key role in gaining women the vote. She also helped found Newnham College, Cambridge.

Margaret Sanger (1879-1966) - Sanger was a leading pioneer in offering contraception and health care services to women. Controversial at the time, Sanger is credited with playing a leading role in legalising both contraception and publishing information about family planning. She founded the American Birth Control League and encouraged the development of the contraceptive pill.

Rachel Carson (1907 - 1964) American conservationist. Rachel Carson was a pioneering environmentalist. Her work, Silent Spring (1962) highlighted the dangers of unregulated pesticide use. It played an important role in creating the modern ecological movement.

Mother Teresa (1910-1997)Albanian nun and charity worker. Devoting her life to the service of the poor and dispossessed Mother Teresa became a global icon for selfless service to others. Through her Missionary of Charities organisation, she personally cared for thousands of sick and dying people in Calcutta. She was awarded the Nobel Peace prize in 1979.

Queen Elizabeth II (1926-2022) Elizabeth II was Britain's longest-serving monarch (70 years) She witnessed rapid social and economic change and was been a unifying and stabilising influence for Britain and the Commonwealth.

Billie Holiday (1915-1959) American jazz singer. Given the title "First Lady of the Blues" Billie Holiday was widely considered to be the greatest and most expressive jazz singer of all time. Her voice was moving in its emotional intensity and poignancy. Despite dying at the age of only 44, Billie Holiday helped define the jazz era and her recordings are still widely sold today.

Rosa lind Franklin (1920 - 1958) British Chemist who made significant contributions to understanding the structure of DNA and RNA, which led to the discovery of the DNA double helix. Franklin also worked on the chemistry of coal and viruses.

Benazir Bhutto (1953-2007) The first female prime minister of a Muslim country. She helped to move Pakistan from a dictatorship to democracy, becoming Prime Minister in 1988. She sought to implement social reforms, in particular helping women and the poor. She was assassinated in 2007.

Oprah Winfrey (1954- ) American talk show host and businesswoman. Oprah Winfrey was the first woman to own her own talk show. Her show and book club are very influential, focusing on issues facing American women.

Jacinda Ardern (1980 - ) Youngest female Prime Minister of New Zealand from 2018. Her style of leadership which emphasises kindness and empathy has received substantial praise. She has called for global action on climate change and universal recognition of human rights.

Greta Thunberg (2003 - ) Swedish schoolgirl who has become a global leader for environmental issues and leading protests against global warming. Thunberg has spoken at events across the world - making it clear we face a real environmental crisis unless we make wholesale changes to the way we live.

Citation: Pettinger, Tejvan. "Women who changed the world", Oxford, UK. www.biographyonline.net. Last updated 11 November 2021. Originally published 18 April 2010.

Women who have changed the world

Legends: Women Who Have Changed the World Through the Eyes of Great Women Writers at Amazon

Women in Science

50 Fearless Pioneers Who Changed the World at Amazon

Fantastically Great Women Who Changed the World at Amazon
Related pages
Women who fought for the vote - Suffragists who played a role in the fight for gaining women the right to vote around the world. Includes Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Ida B. Wells, Emily Pankhurst and Susan B. Anthony and Milicent Fawcett.

Female Scientists - A list of female scientists who have made important contributions to the field of science. Including Rosalind Franklin, Marie Curie, Barbara McClintock and Dorothy Hodgkin.

F amous female authors - Authors and poets including Sappho, Jane Austen, Emily Bronte, Gabriela Mistral and J.K. Rowling.

Women's rights activists - Prominent women who helped promote women's and civil rights. Including Margaret Fuller, Susan Anthony, Millicent Fawcett and Malala Yousafzai.

100 Famous Women - A list of 100 famous women from the arts, sport, literature, acting and politics.
Famous Feminists
A list of famous feminists and some influential quotes by leading feminists.

Other Influential Women of the 20th and 21st Century

Influential women through history
Related

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A list of famous and influential women, including women's rights activists, poets, musicians, politicians, humanitarians and scientists. A list of women in chronological order Cleopatra (69 BCE-30 BCE) The last Ptolemaic ruler of Egypt. Cleopatra sought to defend Egypt from the expanding Roman Empire.

# data[].attributes.body
Cross cultural leadership

# data[].attributes.body
Higher education leadership

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Corporate leaders are sent abroad to get things done, but they often create more problems than they solve. Wondering why their best people succeed in one location and fail in another, firms habitually conclude that the challenge is cultural and provide leaders with "cultural skills" - generalizations at best and cartoonish clichés at worst, with little relevance to solving professional problems. Blaming challenges on national peculiarities, expat leaders often fail (scared, perhaps?) to look at the fundamental factors that make or break a diverse team's success.

When I started coaching Chris in a challenging overseas post, he realized he had become the "quick-fix guy" to laggard branches globally. Great communicators rise fast in introverted professions like finance, law and engineering, and he was a superbly eloquent expert. But he also worried about a career rut. Shaking up one problematic unit after another, then moving on - where would this lead him? He felt he was a star mechanic, fighting the clock to build genuine intercultural teams but never quite succeeding. His story repeats at multinational companies, which carefully plan relocation and projects but hope that human relations between diverse teams and new leaders will somehow develop organically.

Recent research shows that when sending leaders on challenging assignments across cultural divisions, companies tend to look in the wrong place both for the root causes of problems and their solutions. A country's "culture" is an illusion because even the tiniest states are complex environments with ethnic, social and personal diversity. But understanding a place's culture wouldn't secure success in leadership even if it were possible. There is mounting evidence that factors much stronger than national characteristics determine the success of culturally diverse teams.
Awareness: What's In Your Baggage?
The first thing to understand is that while an expat leader may have been chosen for their superb track record, they will struggle in a new environment. The better the record, the bigger the culture shock, because previous successes relied on the network, knowledge and confidence that now need to be rebuilt from the ground up. Studies show that such situations trigger reactions similar to hunters or soldiers being in danger zones: The brain's threat center, or amygdala, fires up, making the environment (this time, other humans) seem unpredictable and suspicious. However disturbing, leaders must acknowledge such natural "foreign-phobia," which needs to be addressed like any other fear.

As Dr. Hans W. Hagemann shows in "The Leading Brain," amygdala-induced stress simplifies the world into "us and them"; consequently, we easily interpret unusual behavior as personal attack under cultural pressure. But neuroscience also proves that culture shock is developed (not innate) and can be retrained. To do that, leaders must consider the baggage they bring to the existing social interactions within the team (practicing "Tribal Leadership" as described in Dave Logan's bestseller) rather than focusing on the vague concept of culture.

In our workshops, we use personality profiles and tools such as SWOT analysis to map a leader's relation to the team's dynamics. For Chris, it turned out his previous assignment was a much stronger influence than his home culture, changing the focus of his strategy as a leader.
Skills: Can You Observe and Adjust?
The keys to successful cross-cultural leadership are self-awareness, calm and focus. These can be hard to find at a transitional time with stuff in boxes, worried family members and strangers for a team. Initially, you may try to observe and avoid mistakes. If the surrounding culture feels alien, you may get its basics from books or another expat. (Don't ask locals: Most of us cannot objectively describe our native traditions.) But don't ruminate about culture. I advise expats I coach on a 3+3 approach: Know 3 greetings and 3 taboos so that you avoid stupid mistakes, then move on to business.

The new team you need to understand won't be "Mexican" or "Japanese" but a kaleidoscope of personalities, stories, habits and ambitions you need to harness for results. Start with the team's basics: gender, age, profession and personality. These are stronger predictors than culture. For the latter, use a personality assessment if you have it. If you don't, observe people for traits like dominance and extroversion. Who speaks first? Who challenges you? Who asks personal questions? Such signs shine through cultural differences and set the tone of your team: From Rio to Rangoon, dominant members step up and extroverts speak up, while others may seem passive but silently forge the organization's future.

Remember Logan's tribes: Similar people flock together, so you can map an unfamiliar team from their seating arrangement. The faster you assess, the sooner you can share tasks without cultural interference. An automotive manager I coached used his multinational team's printed team-role analysis to delegate tasks with impressive results.
Habits: Are You Strong Enough to Empower Others?
The difference between great and poor leaders of multicultural teams isn't cultural agility. I have seen people with impressive cultural skills but poor performance, and vice versa. Knowledge of local cultures (always in plural!) may help you build trust, but I advise to build stronger bonds between team members by respecting the diversity of individual character instead, get results and worry about culture later. Why? Because your team will be able to discuss and accept leadership based on personal strengths constructively, while culture can be obscure and sensitive. When you're upset by local habits, vent to a trusted colleague or friend. As a leader, your job is to define a culture, not to follow one. Among all the silos and tribes, you must create a community where people can be themselves and thrive.

Chris, for instance, realized that by acting as an assertive problem-solver, he silenced his team, including extroverts who would otherwise volunteer. Contrary to the perpetuated belief that "Asians need strong leaders," his team members simply required space to speak and act. A finance director I coached discovered that in her global team, younger colleagues showed more natural potential for goal-setting than senior ones, and she involved those younger team members in their planning process.

While such solutions cut across tribal lines, they produce results if leaders "sell" them properly. Engaging external stakeholders, for instance, is best done by extroverts. There are natural profiles for setting targets, motivating others, coordination and evaluation. A team that creates a trustful environment based on personal strengths will also be able to discuss cultural differences constructively.

We cannot change human nature or cultural realities. But leaders who engage their teams through individual strengths create trust, community and results faster than those who start by emphasizing differences created by history. And that's why we easily recognize a great global team. As a newly promoted client said: "They don't need me any more to work together."
Gabor Holch is a Shanghai-based management consultant providing cross-cultural leadership programs to European and American multinationals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cross-Cultural Leadership Skills Are Not What You Think

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Corporate leaders are sent abroad to get things done, but they often create more problems than they solve. Wondering why their best people succeed in one location and fail in another, firms habitually conclude that the challenge is cultural and provide leaders with "cultural skills" - generalizations at best and cartoonish clichés at worst, with little relevance to solving professional problems. Blaming challenges on national peculiarities, expat leaders often fail (scared, perhaps?)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Understand the Challenges of Cultural Diversity in the Workplace

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cross Cultural Leadership Lessons: A South African Perspective - Michael Cassidy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By David Slocum

One of the great assets of any global academic or training program is the national, regional, social or economic diversity of its participants. In its still relatively young EMBA program alone, the Berlin School of Creative Leadership has enrolled participants from over 50 countries. At the most basic level, that diversity helps individuals to expand their individual networks and to join (or deepen their place in) a global community of creative professionals. Another positive outcome is the enrichment of the learning of individuals from different markets around the world through the sharing of experiences, insights and challenges. More specific to the creative communication industries, which are undergoing extraordinary transformation, diversity among participants enables greater access to specific tools and strategies for navigating changing technologies, customer and client relationships, and business models.

Facilitating the exchange of experiences and fostering the professional relationships among participants is a key responsibility of executive programs. Ordinarily, this includes teaching major approaches to 'cross-cultural leadership' as part of the EMBA curriculum. The research, tools and models for understanding conventional national and cultural differences remain vitally important to the success of creative leaders. Many of these are more widely familiar:

High- and low-context communications, anthropologist Edward T. Hall's classical approach to understanding how much or little implicit knowledge is required in different cultures to communicate information effectively.

Key dimensions to cultural interactions, identified through longstanding research by Dutch social psychologist Geert Hofstede, and including Individualism/Collectivism, Feminine/Masculine, Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Indulgence/Restraint, and Long Term/ Short Term Orientation. (Fons Trompenaar's succeeding model of national culture has seven related dimensions as well as five orientations for the ways in which people dal with each other.)

Richard D. Lewis, the founder of the Berlitz language schools in East Asia, Finland and Portugal, whose model focuses, in simple terms, on whether those in given countries or regions pursue individual tasks using linear or sequential logic, focus on relationships and pursue multiple tasks simultaneously, or follow strategies that seek solidarity and harmony.

Perhaps most ambitiously, the GLOBE project conceived by Wharton professor Robert J. House (and building on Hofstede's model), offers both an inventory of nine cultural competencies and six specific leadership competencies that vary across ten societal clusters. These include charismatic vs value-based, team orientation, and participative leadership.

Taken together, these approaches convey the complexity and richness of communication, interaction, and, especially, leadership in a world still demanding of profound sensitivity in thought and action to social, cultural and national differences - that is, to an early twenty-first century world that is anything but flat.

Yet another aspect of diversity among creative professionals is not so often addressed: the diversity of roles and professions among those who increasingly are drawn together to collaborate. In the traditional creative industries, for example, everyone does not have the word 'creative' in their title. Amir Kassaei, the Global Chief Creative Officer of DDB, the advertising agency, uses the helpful label 'creatively minded' to include those without other formal validation but who still contribute to creative activities. Australian researchers Peter Higgs and Stuart Cunningham advanced the idea of a 'creative trident' several years ago, breaking out employment in creative versus support activities in creative industries as well as creative occupations in other industries. In their recently published collection, Creative Work Beyond the Creative Industries (Edward Elgar 2014), Greg Hearn, Ruth Bridgestock, Ben Goldsmith, and Jess Rodgers argue for greater attention to the third group of workers employed in creative occupations or contributing creative services outside the traditional creative industries.

In a world where cross-functional and interdisciplinary teams are not only increasingly the norm but looked to as a source, in their very diversity of perspectives and experiences, of original thinking and innovative work, the challenge for leaders is to recognize and yoke together such differences successfully. Just as leaders need to mindful, attentive and sensitive to the different communication and leadership expectations and norms existing across geographic borders, in other words, so they should be attuned to the attitudes, perspectives, and expectations about working together brought by different kinds of creative professionals and practitioners. Just as Brazilians are sensitive and adapt to different ways of working together with those in Singapore, to take on example, writers need to be sensitive and adapt to the different ways of working productively with programmers.

Effectively combining differing technical expertise, aesthetic preferences, and mental models has long been at the heart of creative business. The tension - for some, a paradox - between the chaos of creativity and the order of business or management has not only been a challenge to be overcome but a source of the 'creative friction' (to use Michael Eisner's words) needed to generate fresh ideas. A ready historical example, drawn from the 'creative revolution' of the 1960s in the advertising industry (as well as others), involved surmounting the 'great wall' between creatives and suits without losing entirely the productive opposition it represented.

A similar struggle with the tensions arising from teaming those with different professional or aesthetic languages, perspectives and expertise has also long existed among creatives themselves. As eager as were the first adopters of Bill Bernbach's revolutionary coupling of art and copy, finding success in work together wasn't easy or straightforward. The very first team of art director and copywriter, the legendary Bob Gage and Phyllis Robinson, whom Bernbach took with him from Grey Advertising when DDB was founded, were enthusiastic about the new model but often struggled with its implementation. As committed as the two were, their interactions, which were meant to be shaped by constructive conflict, were often bruising. But they ended up producing exceptional and, often, timeless work.

To extend that example to the present, many are calling for an expansion or other re-constitution of the core teams in advertising. For some, it should be 'art, copy and code.' For nearly all, there is a reckoning that some version of an interdisciplinary, cross-functional or hybrid team adds value through its combination of multiple points of view, beliefs, and experiences. Copywriting, design, digital, and production, even planning and strategy are among the familiar roles typically mixed and combined in hopes of generating the best creative outcomes.

Looking beyond marketing services or brand communications, the value of recognizing different skills, experiences, and mental models appears in even sharper relief. Contemporary design and architecture firms, for example, regularly integrate a wide range of experts to help shape their work. At IDEO, cultural anthropologists observe human behavior, kinesiologists study bodily movement, mechanical engineers contribute to the exploration of how physical solutions might be crafted. Foster & Partners, one of the world's most renowned architecture firms, likewise employs a full array of professions, including acoustics specialists, aerospace engineers, mechanical engineers, and visual or plastic artists.

Of course, there is a crucial balance to be struck here - and also a risk to be acknowledged and averted. Even as we identify individuals as belonging to certain groups or professional cultures in order to be more sensitive to their needs and wants and well-being, we take the risk of viewing them one-dimensionally, simplistically. The writers do this and the digital guys do that. Even with the best of intentions, we may reinforce or fetishize categories of professional work or culture out of proportion. As with national or regional cultures or sub-cultures, we may stereotype unfairly. Individuals are not simply one thing or, despite a professional skillset or mindset or pedigree, alike in many ways.

Put differently, it is not only a matter of recognizing and coordinating different skills or knowledge or perspectives in developing creative solutions to business challenges. Rather, the deeper task and responsibility of leadership is to understand that individuals with apparently different professional skills or technical expertise have often developed through very different experiences. Their conceptions of what teamwork is, what successful outcomes or IP rights should be, how creativity relates to business, indeed their beliefs about and attitudes toward authority and the free market and are all also potentially distinctive. Ultimately, the mental models and what management scholar Tarun Khanna calls the ' contextual intelligence ' of those approaching creative work from different professional perspectives warrants closer and sustained engagement by leaders.

That is the basis of the other cross-cultural leadership. The cultures and sub-cultures - that is, the shared attitudes, preferences, beliefs, and values but also common actions - of different kinds of creative workers deserve more attention. The more leaders recognize and remain mindful of those differences, and of the multiple creative contexts brought to bear by their increasingly varied creative talent, the better they will be able to guide and enable the rich diversity of teams and organizations toward accomplishing shared goals together.

The challenges faced by leaders of creative teams and organizations only continue to increase as markets grow more complex, traditional relationships are transformed, and the skills of workers become more varied. Everyone brings distinct tools, skills and knowledge, often from across disciplines and functions, which need to be integrated in working together on a task or project. But perhaps even more importantly, everyone also brings different expectations, mental models, and solving problems together.

Among the guiding tenets of effective creative leadership today are ongoing self-reflection and self-understanding and the central importance of forging a vision and purpose around which creative teams and businesses can rally and work. Increasingly, as leaders bring together disciplines, functions and technologies to generate better and better creative solutions for clients and customers, those leaders also need to be more attentive and adaptive not merely to the skills brought by diverse creative workers but their different beliefs, intelligences, and ways of working.

Such attentiveness and adaptability has the makings of a new alliance or social contract between creative talent with different attitudes, experiences, and expectations. It also presents an immense opportunity for creative leaders willing to understand and engage more fully the many distinct creative cultures represented in their teams and organizations.
Professor David Slocum is the Faculty Director of Executive MBA Program at the Berlin School of Creative Leadership and is on twitter @DavidSlocum.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
The Berlin School Of Creative Leadership

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Other Cross-Cultural Leadership Is Creative Collaboration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By David Slocum One of the great assets of any global academic or training program is the national, regional, social or economic diversity of its participants. In its still relatively young EMBA program alone, the Berlin School of Creative Leadership has enrolled participants from over 50 countries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One of the great challenges facing organizations is getting all employees, from the CEO to the hourly workers, to realize that to become the best, they have to embrace diversity.

Diversity also means to create inclusion - creating an atmosphere in which all people feel valued, respected and have the same opportunities as others.

Thus, you might say that diversity is creating opportunity, value, and respect for all, while inclusion is ensuring they actually feel it.

Diversity is about empowering people. It makes an organization effective by capitalizing on all of the strengths of each employee. It is not EEO or Affirmative Action. These are laws and policies. While on the other hand, diversity is understanding, valuing, and using the differences in every person.

Simply enforcing government regulations will not get you to the best. To obtain that competitive edge, you need to grow your work-force from groups into teams that use the full potential of every individual. Teams are much more than a group. A group is collection of individuals where each person is working towards his or her own goal, while a team is a collection of individuals working towards a common goal or vision.

This helps to create a synergy effect with teams . . . that is, one plus one equals more than one. An individual, acting alone, can accomplish a lot; but a group of people acting together in a unified force can accomplish great wonders. This is because team members understand each other and support each other in a manner that everyone feels inclusion. Their main goal is to see the team accomplish its mission. Personal agendas do not get in the way of the team's goal. By using the synergy effect of teams, you create a competitive advantage over other organizations who are using people acting alone. You are getting more for your efforts!

One of the main failures that prevent a group from becoming a team is the failure to accept others for what they are. It is only when the group members realize that diversity is the key to turning weak areas into strong areas does the group start to grow into a team. Failing to accept the diversity of others keeps the group members from going after team goals.

Embracing diversity is the first item for building teams. Every team building theory states that to build a great team, there must be a diverse group of people on the team, that is, you must avoid choosing people who are only like you. Diversity is what builds teams — a collection of individual experiences, backgrounds, and cultures that can view problems and challenges from a wide-variety of lenses.

Our bias and prejudice are deeply rooted within us. From the moment when we are born, we learn our environment, the world, and ourselves. Families, friends, peers, books, teachers, idols, and others influence us on what is right and what is wrong. These early learnings are deeply rooted within us and shape our perceptions about how we view things and how we respond to them. What we learn and experience gives us a subjective point of view known as bias.

Our biases serve as filtering lenses that allow us to make sense of new information and experiences based on what we already know. Many of our bias are good as they allow us to assume that something is true without proof. Otherwise, we would have to start learning anew on everything that we do. But, if we allow our bias to shade our perceptions of what people are capable of, then the bias is harmful. We start prejudging others on what we think that they cannot do.

Simply giving a class on diversity will not erase these bias. Indeed, even the best development programs will not erase most of these deeply rooted beliefs. Development can only help us to become aware of them so that we can make a conscious effort to change. Developing diversity is more than a two-hour class; it involves workshops, role models, one-on-ones, etc. But most of all, it involves a heavy commitment by the organization's leadership; not only the formal leadership, but also the informal leadership that can be found in almost every organization.

Embracing diversity is more than tolerating people who are different. It means actively welcoming and involving them by:

Developing an atmosphere that is safe for all employees to ask for help. People should not be viewed as weak if they ask for help. This is what helps to build great teams — joining weakness with strengths to get the goal accomplished.

Actively seeking information from people from a variety of backgrounds and cultures. Also, including everyone on the problem solving and decision making process.

Including people who are different than you in informal gatherings such as lunch, coffee breaks, and spur of the moment meetings.

Creating a team spirit where every member feels a part of.

If an organization does not take on this challenge, it will soon become extinct or left far behind. There are too many competitors who are striving to become the best. They know that customers will not tolerate lackadaisical service. Those that are the best must continue to fight to be the best or they will soon be overtaken. You need to strive to be the best in one or more areas such as the fastest, biggest, cheapest, customer oriented, etc.

Great companies who remain competitive in one or more areas do not sit around patting themselves on the back; for they know that there are dozens of others who want to take their place. They do, however, celebrate accomplishments and achievements. Although most companies will never become the best at what they aim for, they must compete to do things better than their competitors. They have to let their customers know that they are willing to go out of their way to serve them in their area of expertise.

Most problems in the workplace are not that people cannot do their jobs. It is that people cannot get along with other people. People are hired on the premise that they can perform the job, or with a reasonable amount of training, be coached into performing the job.

Except for some basic courses about the organization and perhaps a course or two on safety and computer networking, most training given to new hires involves on-the-job training (OJT). Normally, this involves very little effort from HRD as OJT is conducted by supervisors, leads, peers, etc. Although they should become more involved in the OJT process, such as, providing coaching classes for the trainers and creating training aids.

HRD needs to make greater efforts in effectively training or developing soft skills. This includes such subjects as diversity, communication, and people skills that allows people to understand each other and develop good team skills. Every team member must not only be able to understand and work with all the other team members, but they must also want to. This should be HRD's number one priority, to build real teams, not just groups of people with titles called Teams.

Diversity is not only black and white, female and male, gay and straight, Jewish and Christian, young and old, etc.; but the diversity of every individual, slow learner and fast learner, introvert and extrovert, controlling type and people type, scholar and sports-person, liberal and conservative, etc. This is where HRD needs to focus its efforts . . . helping people to realize that it takes a wide variety of people to become the best and that they need to have the ability to be able to rely on everyone on their team, no matter how different another person may be.

An organization needs controllers, thinkers, dreamers, doers, organizers, team builders, etc. to reach the goals that make an organization the best. It does not need people fighting and distrusting other team members!

Organizations need an extremely diverse group of people on each and every team. For example, having a group of team builders will get you nowhere, as everyone will be out trying to create a team. Likewise, having a group of doers will get you nowhere as everyone will be trying to accomplish something without a clear goal or vision to guide them.

Most organizations picture diversity in very limited terms. The essence of diversity should NOT be to picture diversity as race, religion, sex, age; but to picture it as the uniqueness of every individual. Only by accepting this distinctiveness in others, will people want to help the team as a whole to succeed.

Organizations have to realize that all cultures of the world are their potential customers. Not too long ago, many business focused on the young and/or middle age white classes. This was where the money was at. Now, thanks to great efforts towards recognizing the many facets of diversity and the good that it brings us, more and more money is starting to be in the hands of people from a wide range of diverse backgrounds. In order to attract this wide variety of cultures, organizations must truly become multi-culture themselves. They can no longer just talk-the-talk, they must also walk-the-talk.

Organizations that only employ "people of their kind" in leadership and high visibility positions will not be tolerated by people of other cultures. These cultures will spend their money at organizations that truly believe in diversity. Embracing diversity has several benefits for the organization:

It is the right thing to do.

To attract good people into their ranks, organizations must take the moral path. Good organizations attract good people, while bad organizations attract bad people.

It helps to build teams that create synergy — you get more for your efforts.

It broadens the customer base in a very competitive environment.

There are two main goals for HRD to achieve. The first is having all leaders within an organization become visibly involved in programs affecting organizational culture change and evaluating and articulating policies that govern diversity. To do so, you must display leadership that eradicates oppression of all forms. The result is enhanced productivity, profitability, and market responsiveness by achieving a dynamic organization and work force. This is the first goal of HRD, to train the leadership.

The second is inspiring diversity into the work force. Workers want to belong to an organization that believes in them, no matter what kind of background or culture they come from. They, like their leadership, want to be productive, share in the profits, and be a totally dynamic work force. If HRD trains the leadership, this goal will be relatively easy. It is much easier to train people when they have role models to base their behaviors on. Also, you will have backing from the people who can support you in your efforts.

The development of diversity is considered a soft skill. Unlike hard skills, soft skills are relatively hard to evaluate. For example, "Using a calculator, notepad, and pencil, calculate the number of minutes it will take to produce one widget." This hard skill is easily measured, not only in the classroom, but also on the job.

Now, consider a soft skill, "After the training period the learner will be able to work with others as a team." This cannot easily be measured in the classroom. Its true measure must be taken in the workplace, which is also very difficult to measure. This is because this type of training program falls more under development, rather than training or education. For a quick review of the three programs of Human Resource Development (Nadler, 1984):

Training is the acquisition of technology that permits employees to perform their present job to standards. It improves human performance on the job the employee is presently doing or is being hired to do.

Education is training people to do a different job. Unlike training, which can be fully evaluated immediately upon the learners returning to work, education can only be completely evaluated when the learners move on to their future jobs. We can test them on what they learned while in training, but we cannot be fully satisfied with the evaluation until we see how well they perform their new jobs.

Development is training people to acquire new horizons, technologies, or viewpoints. It enables leaders to guide their organizations onto new expectations by being proactive rather than reactive. It enables workers to create better products, faster services, and more competitive organizations. It is learning for growth of the individual, but not related to a specific present or future job. Unlike training and education, which can be completely evaluated, development cannot always be fully evaluated. This does not mean that we should abandon development programs, as helping people to grow and develop is what keeps an organization in the forefront of competitive environments.

First, how do you evaluate "works as a team member"? In order to prove that our training is effective, we must be able to evaluate it. We have no way of knowing if the learning objectives were met if we cannot measure the task being used on the job, hence, we have no way of knowing if our training is of any value to the company

Secondly, soft skills generally fall under the domain of attitudes. When we train a task, we are teaching a person to (Bloom, 1956):

The type of task determines what percent of the KSA is devoted to each domain.

For example, training someone to operate a forklift requires about 80% skill (eye hand coordination, deftness with controls, etc.), 10% knowledge (location of controls, rules, etc.), and about 10% attitude (eagerness to learn, concentrating on safety, etc.).

Training someone to set up formulas in a spreadsheet might require about 20% skill (typing, using a mouse, etc.), 70% knowledge (procedures, reading and interrupting formulas, etc.), and 10% attitude (how hard they believe the task to be, will it help me do my job better, etc.).

Training a diversity topic would roughly require about 15% skill (interacting with others, soliciting input, etc.), 10% knowledge (knowing culture differences, knowing the terms, etc.), and about 75% attitude (responding to others, changing a deeply held belief, etc.)

Soft skill training is mainly changing attitudes—a persisting feeling or emotion of a person that influences her choice of action and her response to stimulus. It is defined as a disposition or tendency to respond positively or negatively towards a certain idea, object, person, or situation.

Attitudes have been defined in a variety of ways, but at the core is the notion of evaluation. Thus, attitudes are commonly viewed as summary evaluations of objects (e.g. oneself, other people, issues, etc.) along a dimension ranging from positive to negative. Attitudes encompass, or are closely related to, our opinions and beliefs and are based upon our experiences. Training that produces tangible results start by changing behavior, which ultimately changes attitudes.

Since our attitudes are deeply rooted, they are very hard to change. Attitudes are latent constructs and are not observable in themselves — we can infer that people have attitudes by what they say or do but we cannot directly measure it. And what they say or do are behaviors.

The instructional designer must identify some sort of behavior that would seem to be representative of the display of the attitude in question. This behavior can then be measured as an index of the attitude construct. For example, if you are training diversity, you cannot be sure that you have eliminated prejudice from a learner. Therefore, you have to measure behaviors, such as showing respect for all cultures.

This does not mean you cannot go after changing attitudes. It most cases, it is a must. For example, the 1997 Texaco headlines about the racial slurs of its leaders show that attitudes must be changed. If you only rely upon the correct behaviors being displayed without attitudes being changed, then expect to see a headline like this about your organization. When we attempt to display behaviors that do not coincide with our attitudes, then expect to make big mistakes. Our behaviors are based upon our attitudes. And as stated earlier, training diversity is about 75% attitude. Attempting to change only the other 25% will not work. That 75% attitude is just too great of a number.

Another example is safety. Being able to perform safely in the work environment is not just about knowledge and skills, it also requires the correct attitude. For many tasks, doing something the safe way requires more effort or work of the individual. Employees must have the correct attitude towards safety or when it counts the most they will relapse back into the faster or easier method . . . and this is not right for all the coworkers involved. They deserve a safe working environment!

Can attitudes be changed? In a experiment by social psychologists Wells and Petty (1980), students were asked to assist in testing the quality of headphones while the listener was in motion. Three groups of students put on headphones and listened to music and an editorial about tuition.

The first group, made no movements while listening.

The second group was instructed to move their heads up and down (nodding).

The third group was instructed to shake their heads from side to side (denying).

Afterward, the students rated the quality of the headphones and judged the material that they had heard. The material was about tuition. Among the questions was one about tuition. Half the students listened to an editorial suggesting that tuition be raised to $750 while the other half heard that it should be drooped to $400. The editorials by themselves were persuasive; they influenced students who listened without moving their heads. However, movements made by the students as they listened had a strong effect on their opinions.

When asked what tuition would be fair, those that heard that it should be raised, thought, on the average, that it should be $582. Those that heard that it should be lowered, thought that a fair price would be on an average of $412.

However, the involvement of body movement had a striking effect. Students who nodded their head as they heard the $750 editorial thought a fair tuition would be on an average of $646, while those that shook their heads thought it should be on an average of $467.

The motor responses (nodding or shaking) that signal agreement or disagreement had a profound effect on attitudes — effects that are not trivial.

To train soft skills, HRD practitioners must picture themselves not only as trainers, but also as educators and developers. To do so, requires a different sort of mindset. With our greater preoccupation with human relations, the affective domain (attitudes) cannot be ignored, regardless of the difficulties encountered.

Training Techniques

Go beyond the role of a trainer in diversity development by being a:

Leader - sets the example and becomes a role model

Technical Expert - on training and diversity

Team Builder - pulls people into a unified team

Peace Keeper - acts as a mediator

Pot Stirrer - brings controversy out in the open

Devil's Advocate - raises issues for better understanding

Cheerleader - praises people for doing great

Counselor - provides intimate feedback

Facilitating Diversity Techniques:

Drawing people out:

"What do others think?" or "What do you think?"

"I've heard from Susan so far ... are there any other thoughts?"

"And what else?"

Silence (20-30 seconds) — gives the learners a chance to think. Longer periods of silence can be used to force people to talk due to the uncomforting nature of the silence is a group.

"You look like you have something to say ..."

Interpreting comments:

words vs. tone (most questions are not really questions)

intent vs. wording

past experiences and personality

use of intuition

paradigms and filters

Clarifying thoughts / comments

use of models and experience

looking for multiple points

looking for similarities / differences among people

facilitator bias

Sensing group energy

sparking the group

taking breaks / timing

Balancing the group

Handling objections

try not to personalize (the learners will become defensive)

reflect / deflect

encourage conversation

remember to breath and relax

How we treat each other:

accepting each other into the group

individual responsibility

being right verses being successful

influence verses dominance (pull rank)

confidentiality / trust

supporting each other

active listening

conflict resolution

There are five major approaches to collecting attitude data:

Records - These include observed behavior such as attendance records, anecdotal records, incidents, and interviews.

Self Reports - Such as inventories of employees reporting directly about their own attitudes.

Report of Others - These include information, rating scales, and interview results of others reporting about the attitude of an employee or team.

Sociometric Techniques - Such as sociograms and social distance scales were members of a group report about their attitudes towards one another.

Projective Technique - Picture presentations and sentence completion in where the learner supplies a response to the stimulus.

Steps for evaluating:

1. Determine from the learning objectives what specific attitude (desired behavior) is being trained.

2. Determine the behavior (construct) that will best exhibit this attitude. Concentrate on one or two specific behaviors during any given evaluation period.

3. Decide on the most appropriate way to get the information.

4. Select or develop an instrument for collecting the information. Collect only the information that will provide evidence of the desired behavior.

5. Decide who will be observed and when. Obtain as many observations as possible and review patterns of change.

6. Confer with the learners to provide feedback.

Precautions In Attitude Measurement:

Attitudes are impossible to measure directly. The evaluator is relying on inference.

Behaviors, beliefs, and feelings, are not consistent, even when we assume they reflect a single attitude. The pattern of behavior may be very complex and be a manifestation of more that one attitude.

Attitudes do not stand still long enough for a one time snap-shot measurement. Frequent measurements at selected intervals will reflect a more accurate representation of a consistent attitude.

Certain attitudes do not have a universal agreement on their nature or what the correct behavioral display is.

Collection of certain types of personal data about learners may lead to legal complications involving their rights to privacy.

Next Steps

Next Chapter: Diversity Continuum

Learning Activities:
Main Leadership Menu
References

Bloom B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: Addison Wesley Publishing Company

Nadler, Leonard (1984). The Handbook of Human Resource Development. New York: John Wiley & Sons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Leadership and Developing Diversity and Inclusion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One of the great challenges facing organizations is getting all employees, from the CEO to the hourly workers, to realize that to become the best, they have to embrace diversity. Diversity also means to create inclusion - creating an atmosphere in which all people feel valued, respected and have the same opportunities as others.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"My leadership on diversity is vision driven from a business point of view and value-driven at the foundation." - Mikael Ohlsson, IKEA

Although the importance of diversity to bottom-line success has been recognized, as Forbes put it, many executive boards remain "male, pale and stale" (Forbes, 2013). This article explores the importance of diversity at board level, factors to consider when deciding how diverse your leadership should be, and the benefits of each strategy. It also shares some important tips about how leaders can learn to lead all types of diversity within their workforce.

Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) has become a mainstay of HR strategies, and most CEOs and leadership teams now recognize the business advantages of having a diverse workforce. But despite the recognition of the importance of diversity, there appears only to be head-nodding when it comes to board-level. This creates a paradox: although leaders appear to understand the value of diversity at lower levels of their organizations, they do not appear to apply the benefits of diversity to their boardrooms which is where some of the most important decisions are made.

Factors to consider when deciding how diverse your board should be

Making Diversity and Inclusion a part of your culture puts your business ahead of the curve, and focusing specifically on your leadership team can help facilitate a top-down approach, so that it trickles through your entire organization. But adding diversity to your board is not a simple task, and there are numerous ways to implement a D&I initiative at leadership level. The way in which you decide how diverse your board should be and which individuals are right for the role will be different for every organization. Below are some of the most common ways to approach board-level diversity, and many organizations use a blend of these approaches:
Diversity to meet business objectives
Diversity and business objectives should not be separate issues - in fact, one of the purposes of having a diverse workforce is to help enable the objectives. This is perhaps even more true at board-level, where the decisions made can have a direct and dramatic effect on the success of the business.

In some cases, the business objectives might not have been identified when a D&I initiative is being undertaken, so this is the time to set them. Then, identify which attributes of your existing board members are missing that might help meet those objectives. You may realize you need leaders who think more tactically or who consider the impact on the people in your organization. Think beyond financial objectives and ensure the diversity of your leadership team add value to all aspects of your organization.
Diverse board members as role models and mentors
While role models and mentors don't have to mirror all the qualities of the mentee, it's easier for an individual to be led by someone they can relate to more easily. While not true in all cases, a person from a minority background could feel more motivated in the workplace if they see a similar individual succeeding in the organization. If the leadership team is too homogenous, the people of the organization from different backgrounds may feel that working towards becoming a member of that team is not an achievable goal.

On the other hand, one of the most critical characteristics of a good leader is the ability to adapt and lead any individual. While your employees may find it easier to connect with board members who are similar to them, every board member must realize that they lead every individual in the organization. To get the most from your staff, they must be able to remain authentic to themselves, so leaders must be able to adapt and connect with people who may be very different from them in order to motivate and work alongside them towards common goals. You may need to focus on the personal development of your leaders and ensure that they have a significant understanding of themselves and others, in order to be able to adapt and connect more easily.
Diversity to reflect your customer base
Business success relies heavily on creating a strong relationship with customers, and providing solutions to their problems. It can be important to have a board which reflects the client base, and understands its culture to establish a solid relationship. For example, if a business is selling products aimed mainly at women, a board made entirely of men may have more difficulty understanding the needs of women than a diverse board with a blend of genders that can add different perspectives and input.

Deciding to create diversity that models your customer base does require a deep understanding of your target audience, as well as any trends that may change the demographics of that group in the future. This means an extensive amount of customer insight research may be required, but in the long-term, a board that truly understands the customer inside and out will add tremendous value to your business.
Diversity of thought and personality
Not only is visible diversity, such as gender, age and race, often absent from leadership teams, but diversity of perspective, thought and personality are also lacking. And because these less visible types of diversity are not as obvious, many organizations don't even realize that there is a lack of diversity in these areas.

One reason many leadership teams lack diversity is because a particular type of individual may be promoted more often. This is because leaders often possess "hire like me" attitudes where people with a different way of thinking or personality type can be overlooked. In a recent survey of over 500 hiring managers, undertaken by the Corporate Executive Board research firm, 74 percent of leaders reported that their most recent hire had a personality "similar to mine." Leaders must understand that although it feels natural to hire someone who thinks in a similar way to themselves, working with those who think differently can contribute to the success of the business.

Most commonly, executive boards predominantly consist of one dominant personality type. Homogenous groups like this usually don't consider many alternative perspectives, and they don't uncover the vast majority of risks that may be raised by diverse individuals with unique contributions. Conflict on a board can be the best thing to drive the business forward, as it challenges the status quo and helps facilitate innovation.

Diversity starts with transformational leadership

Managing and harnessing a diverse mix of capabilities can be challenging and often it can be difficult to take an objective look at your leadership and executive board from within the organization. That's why partnering with a learning and development organization, such as Insights, can help you work with your leadership team to improve their individual skills, team cohesiveness and ability to value diversity and encourage inclusion at board level. As you put a diverse leadership team in place, we encourage you to also give each leader the tools and knowledge to become the best leader they can be.

We believe good leaders inspire their teams to be better by leading with vision, passion and integrity, inspiring them to excel even in challenging times. They understand themselves and others, so they can adapt and connect more easily - which can help them manage conflict, facilitate communication and teamwork, drive productivity and motivate talent. These are all aspects we explore within the context of your business with Insights Transformational Leadership. We believe the best way to achieve business success is with a strong and balanced leadership team that can produce results whatever the business climate.

Conclusion

Overarching the need for diversity and inclusion is a simple, but crucial, action: the importance of valuing your people. No matter what gender, culture, or personality type they are, if an individual doesn't feel valued, they won't get the sense of belonging needed for them to thrive. This means every person in your organization, including those on your leadership team, must feel their individuality is appreciated and brings something to the table that no other individual could. And the leadership in your organization in particular, must be able to adapt and connect with the entire workforce in order to maximize the benefits of diversity.
Back to all resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"My leadership on diversity is vision driven from a business point of view and value-driven at the foundation." - Mikael Ohlsson, IKEA Although the importance of diversity to bottom-line success has been recognized, as Forbes put it, many executive boards remain "male, pale and stale" (Forbes, 2013).