An alternative view of gender diversity

An article by Kristin van Ogtrop in a recent edition of Time magazine trod a well-worn path, bemoaning the pervasive absence of women in senior leadership positions of society.

I like van Ogtrop, not least for her wonderful Dutch name. I wonder how she chooses to pronounce it. Many days in New York I am introduced to a person or a place via an Anglicized bastardisation of something originally Dutch. On your first visit to the city, you’ll probably leave Kennedy airport onto the van Wyck expressway. Of course it is pronounced like a sort of lorry followed by the wick of a candle.

Van Ogtrop occasionally writes an end piece for Time under the heading “The Amateur”. Her articles are always homely and funny, usually about the mysteries of bringing up teenage children. That page in Time is more often filled by Joel Stein, who is funny too but in an altogether more masculine way. Too often for me, Time disappoints: it steers too close to the American mainstream and often ignores the existence of a world beyond the fifty states. The culture section often has no interest for me at all. Yet this page at the end frequently acts as a good dessert for me after a stodgy main course.

The longer article about gender diversity acknowledged the perceived wisdom in the field, including Sheryl Sandberg’s advice to “Lean in”. But the main approach van Ogtrop chooses is to talk to individual women to try to learn lessons from their stories.

She digs out some powerful stories, and illustrates them with extensive quotes. The theme is the same. These talented women had every chance of progressing further up the ladder expected of them, yet at a key juncture they chose not to. The women looked at their goals, looked at the implications of making different choices, and gracefully compromised their career or other leadership aspirations.

The outcomes for humanity of these decisions were undoubtedly negative. It is clear from van Ogtrop’s interviews that these women possessed exceptional talent, and would have brought all the benefits of diversity to their respective opportunities.

Having reached this conclusion, van Ogtrop moved onto established ground about why it happened and what could be done about it.

In the first area, men are seen as typically more driven, and in some cultures to face fewer compromises. If it is not expected to do a lot to look after the kids or contribute to housework, then a career can take a higher priority. There is probably some genetic component behind the behaviour, with demonstrating strength and providing resources seen as the role of men, and nurturing family the role of women. There may even be a physical component: from my busiest career years, I recall deep physical exhaustion, which might take an even higher toll typically on women.

The diagnosis of why led to the suggestions for cures. Perhaps women, a la Sandberg, should just fight through the urges to compromise. Certainly society needs to continue to focus on parental expectations with load sharing the norm rather than the exception. And smart companies could do a lot more to make the lives of their senior executives less burdensome: I always found the relentless focus on after-hours networking to be intrusive. Modern technology should give us all a chance to grow our productivity without ruining our personal lives.

All true, and I agree with the societal remedies. But I think van Ogtrop misses the main point. This is story is not about women, it is about men.

The women in van Ogtrop’s interviews had one other thing in common. They had no regrets about the decisions they had made, and they were happy.

These women had managed to keep a balanced view of their lives. They had probably defined goals for multiple aspects of their lives looking forward several years. And they took a realistic view of what climbing the career ladder would mean for other goals, and decided to pull back. Surely this is something to celebrate, not bemoan?

I have mentioned before a favourite tool of mine, a GAPS grid. G for goals is the most important box. The others are A for achievements, P for perceptions and S for standards. P and S are about how others judge us while G and A are about ourselves. After completing each of the four boxes, the idea is to look for gaps (hence GAPS), and define areas to work on to close them. A gap between G and A suggests we are not meeting our own ambitions, so we should focus somewhere or perhaps tone down the goals. A gap between G and P suggests others don’t believe we can achieve our goals and may act to hinder us (for example, by not promoting us). A gap between A and S implies that our own measurement of achievement does not always meet the expectations of our environment – so maybe we should try a different environment. A gap between P and S is a warning sign of failure.

GAPS has always worked for me, and for people I have coached. I spend the most time on the G box, and am always astonished how this is new territory for most people. Many simply see their goals as the targets imposed by others in staff reports, a sure way to losing control and direction. Even more choose to limit their goals to the work sphere.

Both of these failings are more common in men than in women, indeed I would claim they are almost universal in men. Seeing goals as targets set by others creates focus and alignment, so perhaps it is not surprising that more women seem to complain about their targets than men, since they are the ones ready to have their own opinion. Such behaviour may drive short-term discontent, but will pay off in the longer term.

Restricting goals to work is another deceptive simplification. But the consequence is probably a lack of fulfilment in the long run. Like most men, I slavishly followed the ambitious path until I was forty, when my train hit the buffers almost overnight via a breakdown. From then my work life was less successful by conventional measures (I never secured another promotion) but was more fulfilling and perhaps even added more value to my company as well as to me (for example via the internal Shell blog). Even after the breakdown, I still was in denial about most goals from my private life, until circumstances forced me to address these urgently nine years later.

I count myself among the lucky ones. I reached the right answers in the end, while many slave away in denial until the end of their working lives and can only regret the sacrifices to their relationships and health when it is all too late.

The women van Ogtrop writes about have faced up to their goals with realism, and made courageous decisions. This is behaviour we need to promote, not question. And the ones who need the coaching are predominantly men. Perhaps one key reason we still have mainly men in most so-called leadership roles is that generally men are the only ones daft enough to put up with them.

The world needs a better gender balance in leadership for sure, and perhaps over time structural steps can be taken to enable leadership to be practical with less compromise to other goals. But in the meantime, women can try to be like men or “lean in” or whatever they choose, but is that really wise advice? The happy examples of Kristin van Ogtrop, combined with the obvious misery of most leaders, argues otherwise. In writing a story about women, van Ogtrop has really offered valuable coaching to men.      

All bets are off

There are fourteen months before the US presidential election. I can make some confident predictions. One is that by the time the actual election comes around we’ll all be fed up with politics. All that money spent over all those months will leave us underwhelmed and cynical.

The pundits seem united in a second prediction. Despite all the noise generated by Trump just now, in the end it will be a normal election with normal candidates. On that prediction, I am not so sure.

You can see why the pundits are so confident. There have been insurgent candidates before, and their popularity usually runs out when the scrutiny becomes more serious and the chips are down. The machines of money and punditry generally make it so. One or two mistakes become amplified to demonstrate that somehow the candidate is unfit for office, and there goes another gallant failed campaign.

This is already starting to happen, but in low gear. Observe the way big money and big journalism treat Bernie Sanders. It is condescending to him and insulting to the intelligence of the average American, but it usually works – whatever that may say about the intelligence of average Americans, or more likely their interest in politics. Sanders is portrayed as a well-meaning old amateur. His ideas are lavished with faint praise. It would be great, people agree, if there was a financial transactions tax, but, ha ha, how can that be practical in modern America? This is self-serving and hypocritical – the only reason such things may be impractical is that the might of the establishment will unite to try to stop it.

One thing I hate is that Sanders is portrayed as the equivalent of Trump, the Democrat’s extremist in the same way that Trump is the Republican’s. That is such an easy claim to make, but it is disingenuous. Sanders actually talks about policy and has a coherent manifesto, whereas Trump (and, as far as I can tell, most of the other Republicans) just has sound bites. But the sneaky equivalence is another way the establishment is using its weaponry.

Why I am less sure that these tactics will work this time around is related to what I observe in the rest of the world. There is a sense that politics is less predictable and less controllable than it was a few years ago.

This may have started with the spate of EU referendum embarrassments including in France and the Netherlands, when the public reacted to being patronized by the elite. The trend has accelerated through the rise of xenophobic populist parties throughout Europe, who in converts by appearing to speak for normal concerns of people and portraying themselves as not tainted by the establishment.

Since the banking crisis, this trend has accelerated as trust in traditional politicians has evaporated. In Italy, a comedian is the second-most powerful politician. In Greece, an inconceivably radical government with a firebrand finance minister took office this year. In France, if I was into betting I would be backing Marine Le Pen to become president in a couple of years time.

And look at the UK, as conservative a place as you could imagine, whether with a small or a big C. The Scottish referendum was nearly lost. The liberals have, sadly, imploded into irrelevance, perhaps for a generation – Nick Clegg garotted by the press. Labour may have just followed down the same path by electing a throwback leader who will be easy pickings for the Daily Mail. The stage is set for a disastrous EU referendum next year. What seemed unthinkable has quickly become all too possible.

Various trends have made this possible. Current generations have no recollection of war, so feel freer to experiment in their voting. “Inherited” voting patterns have, thankfully, broken down. Celebrity society has us all seeking sound bites and believing in star quality over old-fashioned competence or experience.

And the establishment politicians have created their own downfall. Most would rather rouse the rabble than make a reasoned argument, and many play up to celebrity culture. Corruption and cynicism have eroded what trust used to exist. And few are ready to make a positive argument these days.

It is heart-warming to see Angela Merkel rising above this mediocrity once again this last week, with her passionate defence of refugees. This just goes to show that a positive, humane message is possible to craft and to gain support for. The same is entirely feasible for the EU – yet generally it does not happen.

Now back to the US. It is true that the armlock of the establishment and the media in the US is even stronger than in Europe. Money talks even more on this side of the Atlantic, the two political parties control most of the power, and the print media are surprisingly supine. Campaign finance rules make this armlock even stronger.

And yet. The trends we see in Europe are even stronger in the US. Celebrity culture is even more prevalent. War feels even more distant – despite the recent sacrifices of youngsters in Iraq. Political corruption is even more obvious. Establishment politicians do little to inspire confidence – honestly who could vote for or trust McConnell or Boehner, the respective majority leaders in the senate or the house? And the almost complete absence of responsible news reporting makes the populace even more easily seduced by sound bites.

And then there is Donald Trump. He comes across as an odious misogynist without any empathy for normal people, and he opens his mouth before engaging his brain. Yet somehow he remains top of the polls. Why?

Trump’s great advantage is that he is transparently independent. He does not need donors so does not have to sing to the tune of the money men. He is basically taking the piss out of the whole system, and people can see that and love it. His put down of Jeb Bush “More energy tonight, I like that” was quite brilliant.

So the people trying to control politics have been hoist by their own petard. They promote opinions based on one-liners rather than any analysis, feeling that this is controllable. People can see this is happening but still fall for the one-liners. Then along comes someone who throws the method back in their face, using one-liners even more populist but plainly his one-liners not some puppeteer’s.

And that is enough. Trump actually has supported many of the concepts that these back room men have lambasted over the years, such as socially managed healthcare. But the people don’t really care about such issues, they were just temporarily wound up by a previous campaign. It is politics as reality TV, and Trump has style and deep pockets.

I don’t think it will carry Trump to the nomination. In the end he will be brought low by the establishment, and for sure there is plenty of ammunition to destroy him with once people really start trying. My fear is not that he will win, but that he will disrupt the process enough to let in someone like Ted Cruz, a man who appears to be just as divisive and dangerous by not called Donald.

If this happens, the Republicans have only themselves to blame. But it will not just be them that suffer, it will be all of us, since of course politics has higher stakes than a reality TV show. Before dismissing this possibility out of hand, remember what has happened in Europe that seemed impossible just a few years ago. Throw in a couple of ill-timed events to randomize things further, just like reality TV. All bets should most definitely be off.

Obama's wonderful legacy

It has become popular to express disappointment in Barack Obama. Many of us were carried along by the wave of hope in 2008, a time that now seems a long way back. The symbolism of a mixed race president, his great way of connecting and the many commitments have given way to a steady grind of small victories and stalemates.

But I think we are missing the point. Look at the big picture. My assessment of the concrete achievements of his presidency is spectacular, even only he can see things through in his final year on the job.

There are reasons we feel disappointed. Like all campaigns, Obama’s overpromised. Somehow we were led to believe that nothing was impossible with this president. And of course, while little is impossible, many things are mightily difficult.

Part of the reason for difficulties is that we all over-estimate the power of the president and forget the many constraints. The primary constraint is congress, and, lest we forget, that is generally a good constraint imposed by design, to prevent autarchy. Given some presidential candidates for 2016, that is still something to celebrate.

But congress has prevented Obama from making progress on several fronts. Closing Guantanamo has been blocked repeatedly. Gun control and immigration decency are almost off limits. Most important of all, the congress has the keys to the money, so any significant reform to tax and spending is simply out of reach. Congress, both parties, showed their true colours when they finally closed a budget deal at the end of 2013 – almost every major provision of which rewarded a special interest and arguably damaged the nation.

The final reason we lose sight of achievements is that they tend to become overshadowed by day-to-day events. Remember the screw up with the Obamacare website? That was a classic example of the operational obscuring the strategic.

So let us step back a moment and consider what president Obama’s legacy looks like being after 2016. I think it is impressive.

Perhaps the biggest issue facing the world is climate change. The lack of meaningful debate in US society is a disgrace, as is the greed-driven denial of special interests. Reaching international agreements on such topics has defeated previous leaders. Yet Obama has never lost focus on the topic. He came home with a ground breaking deal with China, and has set the example for others to follow leading up to the Paris conference. And his administration has played a clever game domestically, introducing many new constraints on emitters despite inaction in congress. You could argue that the world has finally turned the corner in responding to the climate threat, and that Obama is the prime reason why.

Next, look at world affairs. The deal with Iran, negotiated so painstakingly, is a game-changer, opening up prospects for progress in a large part of the world, while offering innocent Iranian’s the chance to suffer less. The statements from opponents have been breathtaking and only show how courageous Obama and Kerry have been, and how smart. This has been achieved without losing other Arab allies, and I sense some sort of end game in Syria may be possible in the coming months. Obama has stood up to Israel, politically a losing position in the US but somehow one he has finessed. It will be interesting to see where Netanyahu and his moneyed allies go from here.

Elsewhere, Obama tackled the running sore that was Cuba. He steered a generally successful path with China, and has helped to perhaps leave space for India to follow in its wake. We can snipe at the decline of relations with Russia, but I don ‘t think Putin left any winning strategies available. We can also look back at the Obama years and consider the absence of reckless mistakes: Georgia, Venezuela, Pakistan might have led his predecessors down dangerous paths, but he has generally avoided such calamities. For me, the biggest black mark on Obama has been his shameless use of drone warfare – but even there I am not sure his discretion was that high. Finally, Obama has been generally respectful to international bodies like the UN, a rarity among US leaders.

Economically, and considering his lack of real power, Obama has also succeeded. We forget the scale of the financial crisis engulfing his first months, negotiated with aplomb. Perhaps the biggest item remaining on his to-do list are the outstanding trade deals across the Pacific and the Atlantic – I remain optimistic for those. America is growing again and unemployment is down. True, inequality remains a running sore, but I can’t see anything more he could have done to tackle that. He has supported minimum wages as far as his power allowed, has also promoted free community colleges and universal pre-schooling to at least give opportunities to more people, and has argued in vain for infrastructure spending. And, lest we forget, millions of people previously denied health coverage now at least have that additional security.

Socially, Obama has been a beacon to us all. He has handled the racial issue with class and subtlety, and I believe the next leaps of progress will swiftly follow. He can take a small degree of credit for the remarkable progress in societal acceptance of sexual preferences, and also gender equality, where so much more remains to be done (Hillary?). He did what he could to help deserving immigrants – and actually that was quite a lot, through his executive orders. Without his leadership, America would be a still more divided place.

Finally, Obama has brought class, grace and humanity to his office. His sung response to the Charleston killings almost had me in tears. He made the difference on Ebola – perhaps a bit too slowly. His wife has been an elegant champion and graceful presence. I love his speeches, and rarely hear anything in them that lowers the tone of public discourse.

So with one or two finishing touches to come, there is much to celebrate about the Obama presidency. The world may not seem safer or stronger than it did seven years ago, but I am pretty sure it would have felt worse without his sure helmsmanship.

One thing that is amazing is the lack of recognition he receives at home. While the world rushed him to a premature (but now deserved) Nobel peace prize, in the US his supporters stay quiet while his detractors are relentless. In the mid-term elections, most democratic candidates did their best to distance themselves from their president, despite his track record. There are many reasons to want to be president, but seeking approval is not one likely to be rewarded, at least not until it is all over.

I also have great hopes for Obama after office. The heartwarming interviews of Jimmy Carter as he approaches the end of his life remind us that much can be achieved with energy, heart and the power of past office. Blessed with good health, Obama will achieve more miracles.

It is hard to overstate just how broken US democratic federal government mechanisms are, and how desperate is what passes as public discourse. Given this, it is truly remarkable that such a man as Obama managed to make it to the highest office, and it is even more remarkable how that office has not sullied him and how he has managed to use it to create an enduring legacy. I am in awe. With a following wind over the next fifteen months, I believe he will stand comparison with the greatest of his forebears.