In this episode, we explore how and why women are severely underrepresented in top-level leadership positions, as well as what can be done about it. Let's talk about the invisible rules--what's really holding women back--and why a fundamental shift is in everyone's best interest.
Although comprising roughly half of the workforce, women hold less than 10% of the top leadership positions. That's a problem.
The question is: what are we gonna do about it?
Having more women on Boards and in C-suites is not only the right thing to do, it's also the right move from a business perspective.
Find out why as I speak to Paul Harrietha & Holly Catalfamo, co-authors of the book, "The Invisible Rules: What's Really Holding Women Back in Business--and How to Fix It." It's a compelling book based on extensive research and one-on-one interviews with 50 senior female leaders from across Canada.
We get into:
- What would happen if we looked at (and treated) gender equality from a business perspective rather than a social one.
- How what they are proposing is actually the opposite of affirmative action.
- Why do we need to re-think systems, HR practices, and talent management to remove systemic biases.
- The 4 Key Biases women face at work and how to manage around them.
- The difference between mentorship and sponsorship.
- What values-based leadership actually is and why it makes decision-making fundamentally easier.
- And, why we all win when women are more equally represented at the top.
-----
To learn more about Paul Harrietha & Holly Catalfamo, you can find them online at capsleadership.ca/.
Also, make sure to pick up a copy of their book "The Invisible Rules: What's Really Holding Women Back in Business--and How to Fix It," where they dive more deeply into everything we talked about today. (Available at most booksellers, including Amazon: https://smile.amazon.com/Invisible-Rules-Really-Holding-Business-ebook/dp/B08YFLJW96)
- I'm Celine Williams and welcome to the "Leading Through Crisis" podcast, a conversation series exploring resiliency and leadership in challenging times. My guests today are Paul Harrietha and Holly Catalfamo, who are the co-authors of "The Invisible Rules: What's Really Holding Women Back in Business-and How to Fix It". It's a compelling book based on extensive research and one-on-one interviews with 50 senior female leaders from across Canada. Welcome Paul and Holly.
Thank you.
Thank you so much Celine.
Absolutely, I'm excited to have you on, I think this is a really important topic and I think your book is very necessary these days, so I'm excited to get into some of this. But I started all these interviews with a kind of big, broad question that's based on the title of this podcast, and that is when you hear the concept of leading through crisis or leader leadership in challenging times, what comes up for you or what do you hear when you kind of hear that language?
Okay, Paul, if you don't mind, I'll start out. So one of the things that I think is so important is that if you think about the data, and women represent, you know, approximately 50% of the workplace, but despite that, women are still drastically underrepresented in senior leadership positions, so they hold less than 4% of CEO positions in Canada's leading 100 companies. So, you know, we talk a lot about this war for talent, but we're simply not tapping into the diversity that the workplace holds. So for us, and I think I can speak for Paul and I, as my partner, this is not only problematic, but it's something that we should all be concerned about, and part of the passion in "The Invisible Rules" is what are we going to do about it. Paul?
Yeah, so the issue of crisis is fundamental as we begin to look at this, is the war for talent critical? And when you ask me on a personal level, what do I think of crisis? From a leadership perspective, I think it is incumbent upon the leaders to help anticipate and avoid crisis. You know, my view as a former CEO and as someone with a PhD in leadership is there's a single mantra in business that says that, you know, the answer to every question that you have from a business perspective is leadership. What do we need to be doing differently? Leadership. How do we need to be more effective? Leadership. And this is where it really comes down to issues of things like gender, equity, and diversity, and inclusion is fundamentally, this is something that could be fixed overnight very easily, it's just a function of leadership. So how do we avoid crisis from a gender standpoint, from a war for talent standpoint, for capacity to operate in difficult times in an increasingly global and competitive environment? Well, it comes back to leadership. So until we see diverse groups of leaders, until we see leaders committed to diversity, it's highly unlikely that we're going to see the issue addressed to the point that Holly has acknowledged it.
So first of all, I think we've just solved all the world's problems, leadership, so we're done here.
Perfect.
This was a really great conference.
It is. Theory is good, execution is hard.
Absolutely, but I think I think it's a really important point and a really wonderful point because I think leaders, ironically, spend a lot of time trying to figure out the other things that they can fix and the other things to focus on because leadership feels too large, or loose, or soft, or whatever their lens is, and they don't focus on it enough quite often or with enough intentionality that to make those changes.
Yeah, so I guess what you're saying is the problem is that most leaders don't lead.
I mean.
And I would agree with you.
Yeah, I think we, Holly, you look like you're about to say something, I don't want to cut you off.
No, I just appreciate your comment in terms of the notion of intentionality and, you know, wouldn't it be great if we could address the diversity and inclusion issues as you know, we've been fighting this battle if you will, for 60 years or more, but it requires that intentionality that you mentioned, Celine, I think that that is absolutely critical, from the top levels of the organization, but it has to cascade throughout all levels of the organization, and that's our informal leaders as well as our formal leaders.
Yeah, I think that's more important than we give it credit for sometime because we get, listen, this is a broad generalization, I recognize what I'm about to say is very general. We, generalized, often get really focused on the title of a leader and the title of this person has authority, so they're the person to make that decision, or they're the person to care about it, when really leaders are at all levels and leadership comes from all places, and it does have to cascade outside of the people with the formal title at the top of an organization for it to be effective, whatever it is.
Yeah, so to get folksy about this, and I apologize if it's too folksy, is that the definition of a leader is pretty simple, it's somebody that someone else follows. And so you talked about, you know, the authoritative element, that's not leadership in any meaningful way, so sure you have a title, but it really is about creating an environment and creating a culture where you allow people to lead and you allow people to follow. The difficulty that we're seeing again, more times than not with the gender issue is that people are still pushing this as a grounds up sort of grassroots issue that is trying to be positioned as you know, from a social perspective, rather than a business perspective. When again, it could be fixed so easily if it became a strategic priority at the C-suite and at the board level. You make that our strategic priority, you put the metrics around it, you put the measures in place, and you hold people accountable for it, gender equity would disappear in no time at all. And so this is again where leadership becomes such a fundamental element and it has to be driven from the top, but then to your point, once that happens, it has to become embedded culturally, which is working both up and down and laterally within organizations.
So I'm curious about that, well, I have a question side of what you just said, and I want to acknowledge, I love the, like top down, bottom up, middle out that you're talking about, like where it's all three, it's not one or the other, or you know, one and a half of the three, I think that's really important. And I'm curious, when you say that it needs to be a strategic initiative, you know, gender equity, that's not the language you use, I recognize, I'm sorry, but what does that look like? 'Cause I hear that and like, I will fully acknowledge that this is potentially going to sound super ignorant, and I'm fine with sounding ignorant, 'cause it's going to be a question. I hear that and I think of some of the initiatives that were happening primarily in the US, but not exclusively in like the '80s and '90s around diversity, and it wasn't necessarily gender diversity, but like, you know, we have to hit certain numbers and have people have a certain number of black folks in leadership position, we have to have a certain number of people of color in these, whatever it is, so it looks like we've hit the numbers. And so I hear what you're saying, and my concern is, is that another version of that? And I'm not saying that's what it is, but that is my curiosity is how does it not become another situation like that, which we know didn't always have the best long-term effects?
Holly, can I jump in on this one or did you want to go?
I know, I can see that you're rearing to jump in, so go for it and then I'll build.
And again, there's no simple answer.
Perhaps I'll disagree with you.
Well, and that would be great, 'cause we've never disagreed before, have we? And so that point, that's part of the reason that we chose to partner on the book is we thought it was essential if we were going to do this in a meaningful way, that there was some creative abrasion here, that there were different perspectives brought to the table, and then we could test one another as we move forward, both from a gender standpoint and an experience standpoint. But really what you're talking about as affirmative action.
There you go, that's the name I could not remember. Thank you.
Yes, so there's this notion that we are going to fill spots based on surface level identity issues, color, race, gender. We're talking about just absolutely opposite to that. What we're doing, so in the book we have this wonderful line that says, "when it comes to gender equity, women need coaching, men need education." So our view is that there isn't this patriarchy that's out there with this broader strategy to keep people down. The decisions that get made as we move up the hierarchy and the likelihood of bringing white males into the environment on a like hires like basis is driven through lack of awareness. If we can build awareness and move things forward, then that's great. If that requires quotas at some point, it will requite quotas, but what we're actually saying is it shouldn't be an affirmative action thing. What you need to do is to create systems within the organization that de biases the processes and ensures that in any case you are getting the best possible candidate for a job, not the most convenient candidate, which is what happens. We look at that Janice Fukakusa, ex CFO at RBC. She says, you know, as an Asian woman, I still made the same mistakes, in the heat of the battle I hired the convenient candidate, not the best candidate, until she changed her perspectives. So what we're saying is don't hire on the basis of affirmative action, create systems that allow you to rethink why you're paying people, whether you're paying them, how you're promoting them, how you're attracting them, how you're motivating them, how you're retaining them? And ensure that you are including individuals in the process who were necessarily relegated out, you know, we're not part of that comfortable network of soon to be next promotional hires or other because of gender or other elements. So it's actually, I haven't articulated as well as I might have, but it's the antithesis of affirmative action. It's about ensuring that you have systems in place that will guarantee you get the best candidate, irrespective of those elements that have influenced hiring decisions in the past.
Yeah, and just to build on what Paul said, and I'm not gonna go too much farther, but it really is looking at how do you embed an equitable culture within the fabric of your organization. And so we really do, and we'd like to compel organizations to really rethink their systems and their human resources practices, their talent management practices, so that we're removing those, you know, systemic barriers that really do get in the way, and we talk about this in the book, we talk about the biases that get in the way of women moving up the organizational pipeline. So it's really being extremely reflective about your current practices and willing to honestly challenge the status quo. Well, why do you hire that way? Well, we've always hired that way. Well, let's dig a little deeper, who's not getting into the selection pool because of these practices that, as Paul said, may not be, you know, we don't have some evil person sitting at the top of the hierarchy saying, you know, make sure that you screen Holly out of the pool, but the practices themselves have led to really awesome candidates either not throwing their hat in the ring or not being considered as a viable candidate.
Yeah.
But to Paul's point, it goes well beyond just the recruitment and selection process, it's the whole gambit.
So I'm really curious from your perspective, so what are the most important biases in organizations that need to be challenged that may be the hardest for organizations to challenge especially, because I think some of them are quite in discussion and more obvious, and I think some are a little bit more insidious in terms of where they show up. And also, you know, from your experience, what is the appetite for organizations to really do the, 'cause systems work it's not super fast, it's not like an overnight, well, I mean, this is why affirmative action was so popular when it came out, 'cause it's like this here's a list, here's the thing we do, we can check it, and it can be checked off in three months, and we're done. Systems changes, it's a bigger beast, right? I do cultural work with organizations, it's not an overnight thing, and the bigger the organization, and that's not a bad thing, right, but let's acknowledge it.
Okay, if we can take this in three steps, 'cause I think it helps to sort of encapsulate the book. So one, I'm going to challenge you on the systems issue. Two, we'll look very quickly at the biases that were identified through the interviews, and then sort of an extension of that is the strategies that have been adopted by individuals and then extended to organizations to become more inclusive and more balanced. So I'm only going to point out that, again, if we go back to the leadership thing, I have a very anthropological view of culture, which is culture is the sum total of the way we do things around here.
Yip.
So if you want to change a culture, because everyone tells me cultural change is difficult, it's not, if you want to change culture, just do things differently.
Yep.
Now it can be disruptive, so you can reformulate those systems and have gender equity in six months, if that became your objective for an organization. Now, would it be disruptive? Sure. The difficulty is that we typically do want to sustain the status quo, and that's leadership again. We hear about this all the time is that we need to hire the best possible candidate, but I have a fiduciary obligation to make sure that I understand who that candidate is. That candidate always invariably happens to be white, male, and of the same, you know, class, the same network of the hiring manager. We can change all that in a hurry. So what we wanted to do is just to ask two fundamental questions when I looked at the thesis and we looked at the book, just based on the data we asked, why do women remain so fundamentally underrepresented at the top of corporate Canada? And Holly talked about some of those issues, and you know, 10% of the highest paid people in Canada or the have the best positions in Canada are female, 90% are men, that's not equitable any way you look at it. And then two, what can we do about it? So we sat down with these 50 remarkable women from across Canada, some of the highest profile leaders in the country and asked those questions. And they essentially told us that they were burdened by four key biases. Now there are a number, there's lots of them, but the first one was this sense of prove it again. Men tend to be promoted on the basis of their potential and self promotion, where women tend to be promoted over sustained performance. So this is a biased that's makes it very difficult for women to succeed relative to their male partners. The tight rope is the second one, is this notion that women have to create a duality in the workplace and sort of balance their perspectives, on one end they're supposed to be female, women like, likable, but when they're too likable and too passive, then they sort of are not viewed as leadership material. But if they're too assertive on the other hand, then they're dismissed as our favorite B word, and then they become unlikable. So men don't have to deal with that, women have to manage that balance as they move forward. The third is the obvious one is the maternal wall is this perspective that whether we like it or not, in Western society, women continue to have, you know, sort of a disproportionate responsibility, not just for childbearing, but the whole domestic realm, parental issues, the whole issue, which makes it again very difficult for them to continue to assert themselves as aggressively as employees, and if you do too, then you're a bad mother, and you know, those sorts of issues that they have to deal with. And then the last is this tug of war, which is this tendency for women to judge other women based on how they respond in the workplace, given the very biases that they have. So those became fairly fundamental, and that allow us to understand as we move forward, how we can begin to address that. And that led to the second question was, well, how did you manage around those biases to become the senior leader that you are? And so we can transition, and then if you have any other questions, great, and if not, Holly could pick it up from there and talk about those key strategies that have been adopted by women to get to the places they need to get to.
Listen, I want to hear Holly's perspective on this, so any questions I have, she may answer, so Holly, I'd love to hear.
Well Celine, Paul's done a great job of kind of outlining those biases, I wondered whether or not you wanted to dig into any of those or are you looking for my perspective on the biases or my personal experiences on the biases? I'm not sure.
Or the strategies?
Yeah, so you know, I want to acknowledge that I'm familiar with the content of your book and I've seen the articles, and so I've heard of those four biases, and every time I hear them, I don't know a single woman, I don't even care if they're in that kind of leadership level who has not encountered at least two, if not more of those consistently, right? So it is a really brilliant, simple way of summing it up. And I think you know, I would be shocked if men who read the book and men who see this don't go, oh yeah, no, that's a real thing as well, right? So as a woman, it's really easy to be like, yes, 'cause I have had that experience, but right from the outside perspective, I think that's, I love the way you summed it up. So I want to acknowledge that, but I'd really love to hear the strategies, Holly, 'cause I think that there's so much good stuff in here.
Well, it's interesting, Celine, when you talk about, you know, when men hear about these biases, they go, ooh, ooh, ooh, and that's that awareness building.
100%.
But I'd love to talk about the strategies, and we have affectionately referred to the model as the CAPS model in the four strategies, that as Paul indicated, these 50 absolutely incredible female leaders talk about are credentials, adaptability, profile, and sport. So credentials, they give us as women, so having the credential, whether or not it is an advanced degree or a professional certification, they get you access to the tables where decisions are being made and they help you get that credibility that's so important at a leadership level. When we talk about the adaptability, excuse me, we're talking about the ability to balance what Paul referred to as those stereotypical male behaviors, those assertiveness, you know, we think male when we think assertive with those communal behaviors that are often attributed to women, that emotional intelligence that we recognize is really so important for all leaders, but it's that balance between when do I need to demonstrate that assertiveness and when do I need to balance that more inclusive, collaborative type of behavior? And then we talk a lot about profile building, and of course building a personal brand is extremely important, but it's particularly important for aspiring female leaders to not only be recognized and seen as credible within your unit or within your organization, but actually beyond the organization within your profession. So we talk about sort of many layers of profile building, but how do we go about doing that and how do we ensure that we're putting ourselves out there as female or aspiring female leaders to be recognized for everything that we bring to the table, which is incredible? And then finally, and I think particularly now during the pandemic and hopefully at the tail end of the pandemic, we see the incredible importance of support. And so all of our leaders talked about how important it was, critical, that they would not be where they are today if it wasn't for support, but you know, just like everybody's personal circumstances are different, that support system is going to look a little bit different. It looks a little bit different for me than it would for you Celine, but they talked about, excuse me, their relationships, their partners, the number of individuals that said I could not do it without my, fill in the blank, partner. They also talk about support in terms of being willing to really recognize that it's okay that they can't do it all. They can't be an A1 chef, they can't, you know, and it's okay. And I actually look at my own circumstances and, you know, I was very blessed. My father was retired and, you know, he was one of my support mechanisms, he went to pick up my kids after school every day and would stay with them until I got home from work. And you know, I think of that as a very fond time in my life, but I honestly, if I had to be making those arrangements for childcare, it would have created a lot more pressure, and it's okay to say that. And then finally, and I think this is one of the, you know, something that I feel pretty darn passionate about as Paul well knows is sponsorship within organizations. So there's lots of literature and there's lots of great mentorship programs out there, but sponsorship is a little bit different. It's about me being willing to say, I'm going to put my reputation on the line, I see that you're a talented individual, and I'm going to put your name forward, I'm going to showcase you as an emerging female leader, the next generation of female leaders. And unfortunately, you know, there aren't a lot of formal sponsorship programs out there in organizations, we're starting to see a little bit more of that, but also, you know, to go back to sort of those biases and, you know, unintentional biases, people tend to sponsor like, like sponsors like, so it's that, again, Celine, I go back to your original comment, that intentionality of saying, we have incredibly talented individuals out here and we need to make an effort to put these folks forward so that they're going to get that profile so they can build their brand and they can take our organizations into the future. So that's our CAPS model, I know I kind of went into a lot of detail there, but it's something that we get very excited about it, as you can tell.
I mean, I love it, I think it's really powerful, and I have a few things I want to say, but I want to say on sponsorship, I really appreciate you explaining it because I think a lot of people confuse mentorship with sponsorship and they think, oh, we have a mentor program of some sort, so it's the exact same thing as sponsorship, and it's not. And so I just wanna acknowledge I really appreciate you explaining it as clearly as you did, 'cause I often hear of that confusion. And I think that unfortunately, a lot of mentorship programs that I've seen, I'm not saying this is the truth across the board, but a lot of the ones that I've seen, there is a lot of bias even built into the mentoring program itself, right? It's not actually done in a way where it is properly inclusive, where it is creating diversity, where it's connecting people who look different, have different backgrounds, sound different. It tends to be, oh, we've already identified these people as high potential, and guess what? It's a lot of the people who look like the people who are in leadership positions. And so I think that there are issues with a lot of mentoring programs, and then it doesn't even touch on the possibility of sponsorship.
Right.
If I could just intervene because as Holly said, we are so keen on sponsorships. So there's a great line that says everyone does mentorship. A mentor speaks to you, a sponsor speaks for you. And the great line is, you know, and I've maintained this for a very long time, and a lot of our leaders did, is people don't climb the corporate ladder, they're dragged up by the scruff of their neck by people who want them there. And that's why sponsorship becomes so essential is if you haven't been told you're getting that job, you're not getting that job. It's preordained based on the sponsorship discussions that are being had. So if we have a singular piece of advice for individuals out there, if you want to get to the top of the house, find a sponsor, and to the leadership issue, if you want to do and get to gender equity as an organization, supercharge your sponsorship program and make sure that you are in fact sponsoring individuals who don't look, talk, sound, and feel like you do. So that would be our little pitch on sponsor.
No, I very much appreciate that pitch, also, that quote was great. I was like, well, I'm going to write that down and take that one away.
I would like to claim it, but that actually comes from Zabine Hershey, who's in the book, and is a good friend of the book, and is just a tremendous leader, and is keen and sort of at the forefront of workplace in Canada and, and issues on diversity. So I'd love to claim it, but we'll give it to Zabine.
Well, we will credit her with it, but it is a really great quote, and I think it's a really, again, very succinct way of summing up the reality of the situation that you don't always, when you're experiencing it, you can feel it, but you don't always know how to put it into words, right? And that is just a great succinct way of putting it into words, so I appreciate that. I am curious, and listen, I recognize this may not, let me rephrase that. I recognize this is not the point of your book, and I'm curious, when you look at the strategies that you have and how they address the biases, and I think the tie is really clear, how different are these strategies to what we think makes women successful? Which is probably really what has made men successful historically. How different are they from what we're expecting strategies to look like? Does that make sense as a?
Sure, well, I'll jump in because I can see Holly deepen thought, she tends to come up with,
I appreciate it.
I get the flip and front end answers, and then she goes back with the deep, important stuff on the backend. What was your question? So one of the things I'd love to clarify is that this is not a self-help book for women, because what we're trying to do.
What?
Well, it is and it isn't. What we didn't want to do is work under the premise that women need fixing, this is not a women's issue. If women could have fixed this stuff on their own they would have done so 60 years ago. One of the issues that we dealt with with all of our leaders is that they were fairly frustrated with the pace of change, as they said, what they anticipated when they entered the workforce 20, 25, 30 years ago, that they would've seen fundamental change by now. So there's a deep frustration within that group. And there's a recognition ultimately that if things are going to fundamentally change, it's the men that have to change, the men who dominate the boardrooms and the men who dominate the policymaking. So part of the book, and we haven't touched on that element yet, is what do those individuals need to be doing fundamentally to ensure that women, people of color, broader diverse groups have the opportunities to work through their organizations? And so that comes back to the leadership issue. So strategically, I just wanted to point out, you know, that it's not about women necessarily having to do things differently, they need to manage the biases to the extent that they can, but what we are seeing, and some wonderful stuff coming out of a few of the leaders, and one of them is Colleen Moorehead, the Judy Project, she was the editor of "The Collective Wisdom of High‑Performing Women", which is another wonderful book, highly recommend, but she talks about values based leadership. And I think that's where we're getting now is a recognition that to be a great leader in this time and place in increasingly diverse environments, competitive worlds, global elements, is you necessarily have to be something other than the traditional conventional male leader. That those traits that were male dominating from a leadership perspective probably don't apply in any meaningful way, and if you find a progressive organization now, you're going to find leaders who, whether they be male, female, or other within the spectrum, is that they are fundamentally leading through values rather than sort of traditional actions. And so that should permeate the programs, and policies, and practices that organizations adopt as we move forward, and we can talk about that a little bit more if we have time and we're so inclined. Holly, did you want to pick that up?
Yeah, I agree completely with you, Paul. And I also think we've had some fantastic opportunities to further interact with a number of the leaders in the book through some podcasts that we've done and some webinars. And one of the leaders that we were interviewing talked about the importance of moving forward in terms of in participatory inclusiveness, so that we need to be looking at things in a slightly different way, particularly coming out of the pandemic, in terms of recognizing that there isn't a one size fits all for leadership, and there isn't a one size fits all for participatory practices or inclusive practices that meet the flexibility of what we now know women need in order to feel like they're being recognized for full contribution. And let me kind of back that up a bit, because I know that's a lot to digest, as Paul said, sometimes I get a little deep there, but one of the things we learned out of the pandemic is that you don't have to punch a clock from nine to five in order to be a high performer. We need to be measuring individuals performance based on their contribution, not necessarily the time they punch in, they punch out. So let's be reflective about what our modern workplaces need to look like so that we can challenge some of the issues, like the maternal wall, right? I don't know if you've had this experience Celine, and Paul, I can't speak for you as well, but I can't tell you how many work meetings I've been on during this pandemic, and I've had moms who are trying to do it all, and they're trying to teach their kids at the same time they're trying to attend meetings and you'll have a little face pop into the meeting, and that's okay, and we shouldn't be looking at that as a disruption, it's the way work has to be done. But moving out of the pandemic, what can we do in terms of looking at outcomes based measurement, in terms of performance, as opposed to the number of hours that you're in front of your PC or in front of your MacBook? So I think that really clever organizations are taking a step back and being reflective about what does full participation for women now look like post pandemic, and what do we need to be doing as organizations to allow for that? Please, if I wasn't clear, please jump in and.
No, I think you were very clear, it's not saying, here's the one solution that everyone is going to implement and it's going to solve all the world's problems, and voila, there you go, enjoy, go forth and prosper. It's asking the question for your leadership in your organization to say, what's actually gonna work for us? What's actually going to work inside, you know, whatever our particular history is, whatever our particular makeup is, whatever our particular, you know, industry, whatever it is, what's actually going to work here? And I think that's really important. I feel like I am a broken record about, I don't believe in one size fits all, I've been saying it for years, it is a frustration point with some large consulting companies that I have, I'm not going to name names, where it is very much, this is repeatable, so it's a one size fit all where you have to fit into our thing. And it's always been very frustrating to me because I don't think that that's the case. Paul?
Another great phrase out of the book, and I, again, I wish it were mine. And this comes from Barb Zvan, who is the new CEO of the University Pension Plan in Ontario, a brilliant woman. And she said, you know the great thing that we're we're looking at right now is flexibility without guilt.
Yeah.
And that becomes essential, because again, when we begin to unpack that, that's not just about women.
Yeah.
There's this view that most men that I know would have liked to have been more active fathers, would have liked to have participated, would have liked to take time off to go and do these things. But if you think that's a career delay mechanism for women, it can be a career killer for men, this perception that, you know, they're not committed. And this view that somehow these programs that we've looked at in the past flex time, time off, whatever, we're viewed as accommodations to women, really reinforced the notion that women weren't as committed to the workplace as they were. But now if we have this flexibility without guilt that gives men, women, fathers, husbands, the same capacity to take time to have their child on their not lap during a call, to if we have hybrid situations where there's balance, where, you know, you can have the mother going in one day, the father going into the office the other, while they're working through home, is that you can create this equality in the household, this flexibility without guilt, which again, I think goes a long way culturally to leading to gender equity and this sense of treating each other as individuals and as equals in the workplace as we move forward. So there may be a positive as we move out of this.
I love that language as well, I think it's really important, and I think that it also, you know, as someone who does not have children and has never wanted to have children, I will fully own that, that is my life. But I took care of my mother when she was sick before she died, and I was heavily involved when my father was sick when I was in my early 20s, and I didn't have a lot of, especially in my early 20s, when I was working in the corporate world, it wasn't my own business, I really didn't have a lot of flexibility. And it had a huge impact on me inside the organization, 'cause I was like, I not going to not like be there for my father as he's in the hospital. So I think that what you're saying and what I love about it is it's not only about parenting, it's not only about a specific situation, it is recognizing that there are so many life circumstances that require flexibility or that can really help the person show, you know, I think about it from a culture perspective where it's like, if you're showing people you care about them and they can have that flexibility, then how much more are they going to care about you in the long run?
Exactly. What's really interesting, Celine, and we didn't get into it, because it is a sort of subset, but there is this whole issue that the bias that women face in the workplace who choose not to have children. So they are looked at very differently than women who do, as there somehow either A, defective, or B, available to work, you know, full-time, all the time. So those women tend to get all of that non-compensable crap work, they're the ones that are asked to organize the, you know, the events and to do all that stuff. So there is a very significant bias that hits women who do not become mothers within the workplace, and so it's covered in the book as well, just is a subset of the larger issues related to the maternal wall.
I mean, you can't win. Given the way it is right now, like.
You can't, and that's the whole point, if you look at all of the biases that women face, is they can't win. If they're too assertive or they're too passive. If they have children, they don't have children. If they spend too much time as new mothers at the office, then they're bad mothers. If they don't spend enough time, they're not committed to the workplace. This is the issue that women have to deal with that men don't, we just get to be sort of self promoting individuals with a singular view on what we want to do and how we want it to with very few impediments. And I know we get pushback from a lot of men right now who are looking at the book going, oh, so this is all reverse discrimination, this is going to hurt me. And it's like, well, it's not going to hurt you. It just means you're going to have to compete with the people you should have been competing with all along. If you're the best, and you assert yourself, and you perform, you will get to the top, but you don't get a free ride anymore is sort of the discussions that we're having. Or at least you shouldn't, if we begin to pay something other than lip service to the notions of gender equality within the workplace.
Yeah, it's so reminiscent of a lot of the conversation that's happening around, like what, you know, with Black Lives Matter and the issues around Aboriginal rights and all of these things, where it's a lot of the pushback is exactly that. Well, you know, it's going to affect me as a white person, whatever the case may be, it's going to take away from me. And it's like, well, actually it just means that everyone has a fair shot at getting into the position that you're just not entitled to it. So it's really interesting, it's a similar conversation, whatever the issue is right now around equity, that's coming up. And I think it's really important to highlight that because it's not, you know, the best can still be the best, you just actually have the full spectrum of potential competition now, as opposed to the tiny spectrum of competition you had before.
Exactly, well said.
I know that we need to wrap this up soon, I want to ask a question, and then I'm going to ask if you have anything to summarize. You mentioned leading with values, and I want to ask a really quick question because I get asked a lot, I've seen a lot of debate of people going, what does that really mean? What does leading with values really mean? And I just be curious, with the research that you've done and the conversations you've had, how would you explain what it means to lead, you know, values based leadership, what that really means?
Paul, do you want me to jump in?
Sure.
Okay, so for me, and I think values based leadership is something that's very personal. And one of the first things that a values based leader needs to do is to really take stock of what those values are. So you really do have to have a strong connection to what drives you, what fuels you, but also who you are as a person, and how does that align with the organization? So ideally, and I wish this were the case for everybody, but I know it isn't, I'm very fortunate that it is for me, is that one's values should be aligned with that of the organization. And for me as a values based leader, those values become my guideposts, if you will. And so when one is faced with a dilemma or, you know, a challenge that if you go back to what drives you and what your core beliefs are, then decision-making, I think, becomes fundamentally easier, because the values of equity, the values of diversity, the values of being authentic, of transparency, of honesty, they will in fact guide your behaviors. So for me, it becomes, and I know I'm making it sound simpler than it is, but for me it does become very much staying true to what you really truly believe in, and letting that be your beacon, if you will. Paul?
Yeah, so again, and I thank very much Colleen Moorehead and her group in the Judy Project for much of this thinking. But the reality is, and you know, the words becoming a little overused, but it goes to authenticity. So, so many of the women that we talked to said that they were coached early in their careers to adopt truly masculine views of leadership and assert themselves in ways that was not authentic to them, and it ultimately becomes soul destroying. And that's why, if you begin to look, you see so many of the senior women that we talked to who abandoned conventional pipelines to start their own businesses, and to become entrepreneurs, or to move into different environments. And it's no surprise, we had people like Christine Magee who are in the book, Sleep Country Canada, you know, that that was her view. These are women that would have succeeded in any environment, 'cause they're remarkable. But what it allowed them to do at some point is to be themselves. And if you begin to look at the literature, you know, what's the number one thing that people want in a leader? It's honesty, it's compassion, it's empathy, it's all those things. So we're beginning to see this movement away from views of masculine versus feminine perspectives on leaderships or leadership traits, and seeing this amalgamation, we've called it androgynous leadership, where when people get to a certain level they can now be themselves, and to be leaders, and to be assertive where they need to be, and just to be honest day in and day out, based on who they are and what they do, and that becomes meaningful from a leadership perspective, because you can look at this person and know that they're being empathetic, they're being honest, they're committed, that they're committed to the organization more broadly. So I don't know that there's a really succinct view on this, but it really comes back down to allowing people to assert themselves in ways that are meaningful to them and allow them to be the best selves that they can be, and celebrate that as a leadership quality rather than dismissing it as something non-conventional or non-traditional.
I love that. So I'm going to ask the question of each of you, you know, is there anything that we didn't get to that you want to make sure you bring up before we wrap this up? And/or is there something you want to emphasize that you're like, don't forget this key point at the end of the conversation for the listeners? And because this was just what we were talking about, would you be open to sharing what your values are with our listeners?
First or second, my friend?
Yeah, I'm just trying to think of what else we wanted to share. I guess it's just a challenge, I'd like to put a challenge out there and say, you know, again, Paul mentioned this earlier, if this was simply a women's issue, it would have been fixed a long time ago because women would have fixed this. So we really want to put a challenge out there to not just corporate Canada, but organizations across Canada to rethink and to challenge themselves to challenge the status quo and to really commit to equity, diversity, and inclusion, and to take the leap. So I guess that's what I'd like to do is I'd like to send that challenge out there, and I think that they would be pleasantly surprised from a business perspective, how it's not only the right thing to do, but it's the right business thing to do. So, Paul?
Yeah, I agree, you know, but this is again where Holly's always the enthusiastic, her glass is always half full, mine tends to be half empty on occasion, is I don't think people will accept the challenge for challenge sake, they haven't so far, they're too blinded on what they perceive their roles are within organizations. And I think it really comes down to boards and C-suites, if you're committed to gender equity and broader diversity, then your C-suite will reflect that, as will your board. And so I think it starts at the board, balance them, make sure that you have at least 30% of your board that's female. We've seen when you have critical mass that that begins to impact decision-making within most organizations. And by the way, all this risk aversion stuff, studies show that women on boards tend to be less risk averse than men because they make informed decisions. So you will have this dynamic on the board. Once you have a balanced board, it will permeate through the organization, we see people can look up and actually see that there is a commitment to these organizations and something I can aspire to because I see myself reflected in that board. So I would challenge boards, and then I would say, and if you don't accept the challenge, then I would as 50% of the women in our book did, support quotas, it's time. They said they hate them, they hate the notion of them, but because the organizations have not over the past 60 years taken upon themselves to do the right things, it's time to have it imposed. So I think it's an interesting consideration.
I appreciate that. So this will all be in the show notes, but your book, "Invisible Rules: What's Really Holding Women Back in Business-and How to Fix It" is available at all major retailers online or otherwise. So if you're in Canada, Chapters Indigo, or Amazon, it's available everywhere, and they can find out more about you at capsleadership.ca, which will be in the show notes. Thank you, Holly and Paul for joining me, this was a really great conversation, I love this topic, so I really appreciate you playing with me inside of this.
Thank you so much, Celine, it was delightful to spend this time with you.
Thank you.
[Celine] Thanks for joining me today on the "Leading Through Crisis" podcast. If you enjoyed this conversation, please take a minute to rate and review us on your podcast app. If you're interested in learning more about any of our guests, you can find us online at www.leadingthroughcrisis.ca.