I recently enjoyed lunch in the Stortinget , the Norwegian parliament building withAnsgar Gabrielsen, former Minister of Trade, who has been internationally recognized for his bold legislation requiring – nay, forcing – publicly traded Norwegian companies to boost astronomically the percentage of women on their corporate boards from a mere six percent to a full 40 to 60 percent representation. The rationale: companies with substantial numbers of women in their senior ranks do significantly better on the triple bottom line – including the financials.This story has been reported widely in the European press (as an example, I was just sent this link to a recent BBC report ), and the governments of France, Spain and Germany have sent delegations to explore possible applications in their own business boardrooms.
In a nutshell, then-Trade Minister Gabrielsen used the power of the press to get the jump on potential political opposition and by-passed the usual parliamentary processes around introducing legislation to announce in banner headlines to a receptive public what he planned to do.While conservatives and the business world (male and female) howled its disapproval with the fury of battle-enraged valkyrie, the law passed. Now, two years later, even the most adamant opponents almost unanimously agree – some grudgingly, some enthusiastically – that the move was very good for Norwegian boards.I will report more on those reactions later this week.
While the larger story is fascinating, I was equally intrigued by the person of Mr. Gabrielsen.How is it that a lifelong politician, a conservative, a self-avowed non-feminist, took the leap of forcing such a dramatic change?What did he understand that other men in positions of power with responsibility for delivering the highest returns to their stakeholders do not?What compelled him to take action when other did not?
The following is a largely unedited version of our conversation over fiskesuppe (fish soup) and jorbaer (strawberries), Norway’s signature spring lunch.The challenge that I set to Mr. Gabrielsen:What message would you send to boards outside of Norway who will not be subject to such legislation, but who want the most effective boards they can assemble?
AG:This is about shareholders rights.This change gives shareholders more choice about a key element in value creation in a company, diversity. Diversity is a value in itself that creates wealth.It’s important that boards have diversity in education, experience, expertise, age, gender, etc.Too many boards have seven, nine, eleven people who are made in the same factory, very often with the same education, very often in the same year.They go sailing, boar hunting and salmon fishing together.They dine in the same restaurant.They are very alike.I believe in the opposite. It is important that people think their own, different thoughts, and gets to say what is needed, not what is wanted.
KS:So this really isn’t about women per se.It is about how boards are organized and function to get better results.
AG:I am not feminist.I am a conservative.I am practical, rational and I want Norway to flourish.
KS:So why focus on this? There are so many other ways to get at that objective.Why women on boards?
AG:I was trying to maximize value.For that to happen, we need 100% of our best people. We have spent billions on educating both the boys and the girls – and then we cut the girls out. That doesn’t make sense.I had found on the Internet a report. I forget which one.I saw what the scientists say [about the positive economic impact of gender equity at the top of organizations]. The reports were somewhat contradictory but I decided: ‘It cannot be worse if we use the other 50% of the population.’I was not interested in arguing.
KS:And it would have been an argument?
AG:This issue of advancing women was a topic every two to three years in Norway.The project never made progress.I realized:‘It is not ME who should provide the evidence.It is the ones who think their 50% know it all that needs to prove THEIR case.What is the reason for keeping 50% of the population out of the boardroom? My career has been about helping companies and the public sector to understand each other. I know the business sector. I had been in parliament.
KS:And so you forced the issue.
AG:Conservatives were in the majority and we were not making the big step.If you wait for everyone to get on board around an important change, you can wait forever.In October 2001, I was made Minister of Economics and Trade.In six months, I decided for myself: ‘I will be the one who makes the difference.’ I knew that the person who would make a difference had to be a conservative man from business – or a minister of trade – not from a female or a female advocate.
KS:So what did you do?
AG:My strategy started with the question:‘Who do I need to make an alliance with?’I realized: ‘I do not tell anyone.’When I switched my vote, in effect, I made the conservative majority the minority on this topic.
KS:Bold move.
AG:I found a debate in our Parliament from 1910.It was about giving the women the right to vote. Many men in Parliament made the same arguments against that as they give against having women on boards.
KS:Norway and the other Scandinavian countries are world famous for having greater gender equity than just about anywhere else on the globe.Families receive great social support when they have children, allowing both men and women time with their children when they are born, and quality care for their kids when they go back to work.Why wasn’t the situation already taken care of at the top of the house? Why, in all places, was this still a problem?
AG:From the time the first man came into the world, the one who gets power wants to keep it.
KS:Just men?Isn’t that true of mankind in general, women included?
AG:I believe that women are equal to or better than men.Why? Women don’t take high risk.These big international scandals – Enron, Elf – the people who got them in trouble were men.The whistle blowers were all women.I wanted to break up the alpha male club. We had educated 50/50 boys and girls.The women had the experience. There was no reason why they should not advance to the highest levels.
KS:You did this in such a bold way.On 22 February 2002, the headline suddenly appeared in the paper, and by 6 PM you were in the office of a rather furious Prime Minister’s office.
AG:Yes, and I didn’t move.I knew it would work out.On 8 March 2002, I invited six men and 94 women to parliament.For the six men who were there, the effect was very visual and visceral.They got it.They felt what it was like to be in such a small minority. And they realized that they knew almost all of the men and none of the women – maybe one or two.The fault was not with women but with the men’s own entirely male networks. By November 2003, Parliament supported the legislation.It took a little longer for certain members of the business community to get behind it.
KS:I have to say that you went about accomplishing your goal in what can only be described as a very male way: a forcible sort of strength and courage that took on what needed to be done with no one else’s permission.And then, when you had advanced on the issue, you creatively found ways to co-opt others to join your side.
AG:I had to force it because I knew that both the party leader and the prime minister would have said no.
KS:Why do you think the situation exists in the first place? Not just in Norway, but anywhere?
AG:There is something between men and women where they fight each other.In my view, we need both perspectives because men and women are different.Think of 10 boys on a hiking trip. Think of 10 girls on a biking trip. It is hard to name what the real difference is. The older I get, the more I see that nature is driving us.
That is if, as so often remains the case, the current top team is all or almost entirely male despite the best, sincere efforts of all concerned to find and elevate more women.
Shared below is the lightly edited (and disguised) note that I just sent to a senior level woman tasked by her CEO with leading a diversity effort.The well-intentioned CEO’s original request was for more women at the top (there is only one female on the senior leadership team); the brief quickly expanded to be “more diversity in general” and ultimately morphed to “more diversity of thought.”Here is my reaction to the situation:
Some thoughts to continue the conversation. First, thanks again for meeting. I really appreciated all that you shared, and I am impressed with what you have done.
Second, I agree that diversity of thought is the real end game here. The ultimate goal should be that your company evolves to a point where diversity of thought can flourish, and where ideas, energy and action become the points of distinction -- not gender, ethnicity or any of a host of what are now called “differences.” When you think about it, however, starting with diversity of thought as a short term goal is putting the cart before the horse. It is an outcome of other steps that must be successfully undertaken first. Chief among these steps is the issue of getting more women to the top. Why? Because as we discussed, women by definition bring diversity of thought to the top team when it is overwhelmingly male -- you have experienced that personally. It has been amply proven in many studies conducted by major and well-respected institutions that women and men as a group tend to think in ways that are more complementary than identical: they each bring different ideas and perspectives to the table. Therefore, advancing a critical mass of women into the top team is a vital first step toward your ultimate goal. Advancing women in sufficient numbers will allow them to act as their true selves; when they are in too small a minority they must either conform or simply not be heard.Getting enough women into the top team will start to free up the thinking that can immediately lead to better outcomes (wiser decisions, better communication, flatter teams), and create the conditions for other forms of diversity to flow through. And, fact is, you can only tackle so much at once, and women are half of the workforce – you will get a lot of results for the effort.
Why do organizations so often quickly move past the issue of getting more qualified women to the top and go straight to diversity of thought? Frankly, because gender is such a hot potato. This does not need to be the case. It is possible to handle the gender politics with more cool: with sensitivity and more “clinical analysis”. The more that the strengths that each gender brings to business discussion and decisions are understood, the more that gender differences can be valued in ways supportive of both men and women, then the more that positive change can occur.
By the way, developing the ability to hold these conversations and do the right analytics around gender (and, when the time is right, other forms of diversity) will also be of great help to your CEO Jerry. Clearly, his heart is in the right place: he wants to tackle the issue of diversity. It also seems to be true that he is not quite ready to take it on with the boldness that a real diversity effort requires of its CEO.
It takes the leadership of the CEO to overcome the cultural inertia and organizational systems that bias the organization away from diversity. From what I understand from our conversation, he may not truly feel fully confident through and through of the "case for change", or how to make the case convincingly (especially with his alpha male colleagues). Jerry needs more ammunition -- which you are in the process of skillfully providing him in the form of the internal “case study/diverse team guerilla action”. We also need to gather the well-researched external case into a form that he can internalize and share.
These are my thoughts at the moment. Would love to hear your reactions, and I am afraid that this note is already too long!
The senior manager, draped in the traditional black abbaya with her hair modestly tucked beneath her head scarf, smiles continuously over tea as she describes what it takes to become a female leader within a business in her small country. She treats me to one of her favorite indulgences: a proper high tea at a fancy international hotel, complete with Earl Grey tea, scones, clotted cream, and a good assortment of small sandwiches with thin slices of cucumber and egg. No crust.
I am in the country on business myself, playing a small part in an initiative that has been underway for a few years.My job is to help line managers understand better how to work with HR in an effort to improve how business gets done in general, and to help young locals, in particular, to succeed.The goal of the program (like the “–ization” goals of other oil-rich countries in the region) is to boost the number of locals in key jobs in local companies, which are primarily in the oil sector.While a goal of much of the world is to wean their economies off dependence on foreign oil, a key objective in the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia is to wean their economies off their dependence on foreign expertise, to build a business culture rich in leadership and managerial competencies that will serve the countries’ interests beyond oil in the future.
This woman laid out the central story: oil wealth is creating so many opportunities to create other businesses that the main constraint in achieving their "-ization" goal is supply. Like all the Gulf states, this one has a very small population relative to the size of the opportunity. How can these young people be trained and motivated to take on the most challenging jobs of managers and leaders? The change from traditional desert dweller to sophisticated engineers and businesspeople has come in only one or two short generations.At present, a huge workforce of ex-patriots holds most of the jobs.
Since I have not yet gotten permission to use her name for this blog, I will refer to her as L, which is not the first letter of her name. Our conversation takes about an hour, and goes like this:
K:Do young people understand what it takes to succeed at a professional level?
L:Yes, I think they do.They know that they need a formal education. Our country is providing this through schools and universities. We have some very good institutions. Women in particular are keen to get an education. More girls are now getting engineering degrees than are boys.
K:That’s pretty impressive. In the US, we like to think that we are advanced on these things, but this year marks the first time in history that the entering freshman class at MIT has more girls than boys – this despite girls’ achievements in math and science at the high school level. What do your country’s girls plan to do with their engineering degrees?
L:We need more women in the energy sector, and they start out wanting to do that.What the don’t consider is that energy sector jobs are mostly in remote locations. I myself had to drive an hour each way by myself when I started.
K:An hour’s distance is considered to be a remote location?
L:Yes.In our culture, that is considered to be a very long commute. The girl is then away from home for too long during the day. How do you have a social life?How can you care for young kids?Many parents and girls also fear having a girl driving alone for that long.
K:Maybe the companies or the government need to create some housing in the remote locations?
L:That is not really how we do it. People live with their families.Part of the challenge of "-ization" is that the girls have a hard time adjusting to the remote locations. Another hard part is a widespread issue with the boys. Boys seem to think that they can go straight to management. They seem to think that they will work for one or two years as an engineer, then get a big promotion.That’s really not how it works.
K:How did it work for you?
L:I had been a teacher. Several years ago, I joined one of the companies in the energy sector. Yes, it was in a remote location, but I was very determined to succeed. Hesitant, yes, but also determined. I had several children. The youngest one was in grade school, and we had a grandmother at home. So I could drive the one hour each way.I started as a supervisor. I took a diploma in my functional specialty.I did well, and was promoted to the head of the group.
K:Are there many locals at this managerial level?
L:Very few.Then, a year later, my boss left the company for another job elsewhere, and I became the manager.The function and the job were huge but I tackled it.
K:How would you describe yourself as a manager?As a woman trying to get ahead in this culture?
L:I do not like to make the sole decision. I always like to discuss decisions very openly. I like to be very transparent about how decisions are made. I have a meeting every week to discuss things with my team.I think this is very much a part of who I am as a manager and as a person.I also delegate authority.I tell my people: “You can make decisions up to this amount of money.” This makes them feel good.
K:One of the issues that I hear a lot about in your country is managing diversity since you have so many ex-pats. The number I have heard is that ex-pats outnumber locals 5 to 1.How do you manage that?
L:Diversity is not an issue for me because I am very transparent. In our company, all of our HR policies and guidelines are on-line.This transparency gives people a great feeling of security.They know that they are being treated fairly.If there is any policy change under consideration, we make a discussion about it.I take into account the many different points of view. Individuals may not be happy with the ultimate outcome, but they do understand that they are being taken into account.I also have a very open door policy.Anyone can come into my office and ask me anything.Ironically, the one issue I do have in that regard is that that it is sometimes very difficult for locals to be managed by other locals.They don’t want to be managed.
K:Since you are the first woman to reach your level in your organization, I have to ask: are men willing to be managed by a woman? By you?
L:Local men are not as open with me as they would be with a local man.We have a tradition here in our country.That is, the men have a tradition here in our country.They have a majlis, which is a gathering place for men. There, they discuss “manly matters.”Or, they may go to a shisha, have a water pipe and discuss matters, even matters at work.Lots of decisions are made in these places.
K:I have to say, this sounds familiar.It is guys going out for a beer, or fishing.How do you still succeed in the face of this institutionalized separation?
L:I counteract this by telephoning.By staying late to get their ears.By asking them to join me in meetings.
K:You mean, you make your own majlis?
L: (laughing) I have my own majlis, yes.
K:How typical are you as a woman here?Will we be seeing more women like you succeeding? Even going beyond what you have accomplished? You yourself are still young...
L:Most of my friends work.Far more women work than don’t. They continue their educations.Women are very determined, more determined than the men.They know that they need to prove themselves capable. They want to be able to support their families.Men tend to be more attracted to private companies where they think they can be more in charge, but women are entering the larger organizations where there are larger jobs.Many times, that is a better way to really succeed.Some of these private companies are not really businesses, if you know what I mean.
We can all wish L the very best in her career. She is a tough and graceful lady bridging a major gulf in the Gulf.
When I was in London a couple of weeks ago, I was put in contact with two people who exemplify the word “leader” in its purest sense.They do not work for a large organization; in fact, they are entrepreneurs working out of their proverbial garages.But their ability to envision a future, get others on board with it, and make it happen, all under conditions of uncertainty with no small amount of business and personal risk, make them fully fledged exemplars of the Leadership Code.
I am talking about Elin Hurvenes and Jane Scott founder and UK Director (respectively) of the Professional Boards Forum .This organization is the brainchild of Elin, created in Norway in 2002 to counter the charge from an outraged business community that qualified women did not exist for public boards, full stop.Why outraged?Not because they wanted women and couldn’t find them, but because in 2002, women were being forced upon them by their own democratically elected government.In that year, the Norway legislated that fully 40 % of directors on company boards had to be women (up from a starting point in the low single digits).Elin brought together CEOs, chairmen, selection committees and experienced business women, and put them through a process of getting to know each other in ways that has resulted in placing women directors on the boards of several companies on the Oslo Stock Exchange.
Flushed with success, she then contacted her former classmate at London Business School, Jane Scott, to help her bring this concept to the UK this year.Brave? You bet, because while Norway had legislated gender equity on boards, the UK has done no such thing, and the starting statistics were just as bad.So Jane and Elin’s undertook to persuade Chairmen of major FTSE 250company boards to participate in their process without any legislative battering ram. Many doorbells (and slammed doors) later, they had captured the interest of 25 of these powerful chairmen, and are holding the first UK session in London on May 5.There, they will introduce 25 FTSE 250Chairmen to about 50 “board worthy” women whom they have painstakingly sourced through a number of contacts and connections.Exciting, difficult, rewarding work driven by truly dedicated leadership.
Why do I say leadership?While their “formal” organization is small, if one considers the enormous virtual network that had to be built, and the promise of the future that the very concept holds, our Leadership Code nicely described these leaders…
·Strategists:envision and create a future in line with current or attainable resources
·Executors: translate strategy into action through intelligent decision making, teamwork and process
·Talent Managers: engage others to get immediate results by identifying the required skills, and drawing the right talent close: communicating well, and connecting the individual to the mission
·Human Capital Developers: build a workforce plan that helps others see their futures in the enterprise
Finally, Personally Proficient leaderscontinuously learn, particularly about their passions. They bring out the best in others because of their own integrity and trustworthiness.When the going gets tough – or uncertain – or untested – and the personal and professional stakes are high, these are people who remain calm, confident, and grounded in their own quite personal and fundamental principles and values.
To read the fuller story of their accomplishments, please read about them in an April 29 article in the Financial Times.
Like many Americans, I was transfixed by the story of the hijacking of the freighter Maersk Alabama since Somali pirates first boarded by force last Wednesday.The larger story of piracy in the region fascinates, of course, but the leadership story of Captain Richard Phillips compels discussion. If the media accounts are anywhere near accurate, if ever there were a leader who engendered loyalty in his followers through the coolness of his thinking and the quality of his character, that leader would be Captain Richard Phillips.
To recap for anyone who may have missed it: when the unarmed crew of the freighter knew it was being boarded by pirates bristling with arms and armaments, the captain’s greatest concern was the safety of his crew. When he was taken hostage, his loyal crew credited him with saving their lives at the risk of his own.From all accounts, no one was more joyful at his safe return after a grueling ordeal in a small boat in a large ocean was that same crew. After all, Phillips had volunteered to be taken hostage to reduce the risk of capture, injury and death to the seamen who worked for him.
Wow.
Now think about the captains of the ships of industry afloat – or awash – on the pirate-infested seas of our global economy.How many of their crews believe that their captain is personally willing to off-load risks from the workers onto themselves? How many of their crews believe that the captain is truly trying to keep them safe? What are they looking to as evidence of the leader’s willingness and ability to care for his or her followers?
Senior leaders today are all about getting their people to do more with less - to find innovative solutions to customer needs.So what can 21st century leaders learn from Stonehenge?Or, more accurately, from retired construction worker Wally Wallington of Flint, Michigan in the US, who seems to have solved the mystery that has stumped leading scientists, archaeologists and engineers for hundreds, maybe thousands of years: how the massive stone enclosure was constructed. This innovative guy, driven by his own curiosity and informed by his experience in construction as well as his own powers of observation and deduction, demonstrates how simple and easy it would have been to create Stonehenge. http://j-walkblog.com/index.php?/weblog/posts/moving_big_rocksWhat do you take away from this story?What are the leadership lessons here? Sometimes the best thing to do is to find people who are intensely curious about solving problems, and then get out of their way.
Why did Ansgar Gabrielson, a conservative minister for trade and industry in Norway with no particular affection for women’s liberation, flip the gender politics of Norwegian business leadership on its head in 2002?By that I mean, why did he suddenly declare without warning that 40% of all boardroom positions in companies listed on the Oslo stock exchange would be held by women within five years, or be shut down?This in a country in which, at the time, 94 percent of all board positions held by men.
The simple reason: Gabrielson was willing to look at the facts.Here I quote the Times UK Online (June 8, 2008):
“He was not driven by ideology aimed at creating equality between the sexes, he says, despite accusations that the quota law was created by ‘fetishists of diversity.’The boardroom revolution he ushered in was inspired by studies in the United States showing that the more women there are at the top of a company, the better it performs.”
As a top minister for Norway, he saw an opportunity for a country whose population was aging, and who needed to draw on the talents of more of its citizens in order to compete.The Times piece quotes him:
“’What’s the point in pouring a fortune into educating girls… if, when it comes to appointing business leaders in top companies, these are drawn from just half the population – friends who have been recruited on fishing and hunting trips or from within a small circle of acquaintances?It is all about tapping into valuable under-utilised resources.’”
I have not yet met Gabrielson, but did have a chance to engage with other Norwegians last week about what their dramatic leap into gender equality at the top has taught them: the positive effects on business results for sure (very positive), but also very positive results for children, women and-- guess what – men!It is fascinating story, and clearly provides a bold example of how any organization, even those outside the social support net of Norway, might think about re-populating the top of the house for competitive advantage.
Kate O’Sullivan of CFO Magazine has launched a new column on leadership aimed specifically at professionals in the finance organization who aspire to increase their impact on the larger organization.
In her inaugural column, O'Sullivan looks not only at what leaders need to do to mature to the next stage of their leadership development, but also what they need to stop doing.
From what I can tell, O’Sullivan’s column -- both this one and future ones -- will be relevant to anyone who wants to transition from contributing primarily through technical expertise to contributing more broadly as a leader.It is definitely worth a look.
Amy Reece of LeaderReview invited me to talk about our book The Leadership Code with a group of her clients yesterday.For those who don’t know Amy, she is a gifted coach and consultant who also provides her clients the service of seeking out books that they should know about.Somehow, our book made that list. If you have time for all or part of the 45 minute recording on Leadership Code, enjoy! You will get the usual virus warnings – rest assured that this link is fine.
If you have any questions or comments about this podcast or anything else, please be sure to connect with me either through this blog or directly through my email.Thanks!
No one needs to be reminded that the current economic downturn is global.Interestingly, when it comes to leadership at this time, it appears that important questions are universal as well.
I recently responded to a set of questions sent to me by a reporter for a Chinese business magazine.The first question that he asked was the first one that I often hear from people in the US and Europe as well.Specifically: “In times of crisis, what changes do you observe in leadership style and substance -- is leadership less important than it was before?” Basically is it more about execution, with the needs of the people and preparing for the future taking a distant back seat?
This question from China is highly relevant.We have heard many examples of senior level people who have in effect abandoned their leadership responsibilities to hunker down and “do what needs to be done.”They ignore the needs of the people upon whom they depend, the larger organization, even the future in the name of exigency.
Leadership is important at all times, even in good times, because the ability to think and plan ahead, to really know what customers want, to get ahead of change, to sensibly manage resources and coordinate execution, to engage people today and around their own futures will keep those good times going.If we had had good leadership in key institutions over the past few years, we would not be in the fix we are in today.Imagine, for instance, if leaders in certain US financial institutions had said: “It runs counter to our values and our collective long term benefit to focus only on short term profits.We must only sell instruments and securities that we understand, and that accurately reflect risk as well as return.”Look as well as the companies whose leaders had the wisdom not to over-extend themselves during the good times in order to have sufficient resources to weather the downturn today.Those folks can even position themselves better for the recovery because they can make smart investments in the business and talent that the competition can’t.
That said, nothing heightens the sheer drama around the role of leader more than a crisis.In tough times, people need leaders who are visible, who engage with their people, and who are willing to take action.Employees need leaders who reduce their sense of insecurity, and who give them confidence that they will live in a safety and prosperous future -- eventually.They need leaders who are as honest as they can be about what they face, and who have a plan for moving forward.When anxiety runs high, leaders need to communicate with those around them more than before, and be prepared to listen to the concerns and ideas of others.When leaders do that, they will find that the people needed to do the work will be better able to focus on the tasks before them with energy and goodwill.
Psychologists will tell us that the hardest emotion for people to live with is uncertainty. Leaders need to reduce that feeling in their people.Even bad news is better than no news.If you happen to be in a business for which 2009 is going to be really tough, acknowledge that.Then engage in the dialogue around how to move forward from there to succeed.If you are in a business that should do fine in this downturn, for heaven’s sake, say that as well!The psychology of this downturn, at least in the US, is far more negative than it needs to be.Help your people live in as positive a reality as you can.
