“SUCCESSFUL” WOMEN
At the outset, I should say the next post will deal with successful men, so I am not trying to be sexist here. Rather, my belief is that, while there are many similarities, there are also significant differences between men and women in how success is handled or not handled and I think these should be dealt with separately.
Characteristics of the “successful” woman
A frequent observation I have made is that outwardly successful women often show a lot of confidence and apparently high levels of self esteem as well as technical competence. In reality, these outward signs often mask significant underlying psychological problems or what colloquially might be called “hang ups”.
We must first ask ourselves is this observation muddled or does it represent some form of bias on my part? As for the bias I think not, because extensive anecdotal evidence shows that many successful women are driven by a need to get to the top, perhaps to become the CEO, to be in charge, to be in control. There is often a strong need for them to be in control. There is a definite feeling that they can match it with men, that they are as good as men, if not better, that they have had to fight through a man’s world in various ways, and in some ways this makes them even tougher than men. By developing in this way, their shadow (a concept discussed in a previous post) is that they must not show vulnerability.
Often, such women cannot and will not show any vulnerability at all. In not showing vulnerability, they experience difficulties in learning, because only through vulnerability do we learn.
Successful women often become “islands” in organisations, where other women cannot connect with them or network with them. Frequently, such women tend to not show feelings or acknowledge that certain feelings even exist. (Once again, this goes into the shadow of the organisation, especially if they are the CEO or a senior executive).
Causes of their behaviour
That seems hard to believe as women are generally credited with being far more emotional and empathetic than men. What could cause women to act in such a way where their feelings are so suppressed? Can we trace the origins of this kind of behaviour back to childhood again? (See earlier post on this subject). Yes, it does indeed go back to childhood and to what I mentioned before about the strong need to be in control.
These women were frequently not in control at all in their families or in their home situation and they learned that the way to be in control was to put one’s feelings to the side and be “tough”.
Am I really suggesting here that behaviour by women executives is a result of interactions with mothers and fathers in the past? Yes, I am suggesting that – if their parents were significant persons in their lives, as is usually the case.
Some successful women come from families where both mother and father are very powerful and true equals. This sort of successful woman usually has a very good self-esteem. Not only do they have good self- esteem but they are able to develop a male-female organisation where both men and women are equal and work well together, because they have a strong basis for a sense of equality of the sexes and do not see sexuality as a battle-ground but merely a difference.
How might a woman’s relationship with her father in childhood have had a more negative impact in later life? If the father was a tough disciplinarian who ran the household, then the daughter would have learned that that was how power was exercised and that was how to have control. She would want to mimic that sort of behaviour, that is assuming that the mother was a sensitive, caring person in the family (yes, the daughter is rejecting the way mum was or is). She would do that because she saw that her mother didn’t get anywhere in the relationship, that it wasn’t equal. She would do that because she wants to feel powerful and in control and to feel ok, not subservient and not be not in control of her relationship with her husband or partner.
If the roles of mother and father were reversed, and the mother was the dominant or controlling figure and the father was the subservient person who was basically so quiet you didn’t know he was there, then the woman could still become successful if she decided to take on the powerful role of the woman in the relationship. She could still be a very tough woman in the organisation. She would then hold the view that males were not that tough anyway and it would affect her behaviour in how she dealt with men in the organisation. She would assume that they weren’t good enough much of the time.
The organisation suffers when vulnerability is not tolerated
Why should these issues be a concern to already successful women? By definition these women have achieved their success by behaving the way they have. They have got to where they are because of, or perhaps despite, these underlying psychological issues. Simply to suggest that, if they do not display greater vulnerability or release some greater displays of feelings, these women will not continue to enjoy success or perhaps even greater success, does not sound logical. They will, in fact, continue to build success – success measured in salary, dollars, promotions and the like. However, the organisation will not necessarily be successful in that the staff would need to not show vulnerability in the organisation, because if the top person, whether they are male or female, shows no vulnerabilities, then staff would sense that and no-one would show vulnerabilities. That sort of organisation is a much stressed one because there is no room for error – you cannot make a mistake. At the same time, because of that culture, staff will be nervous and reluctant about making a decision in case it might be wrong. Decisions will then somehow be pushed as high as possible rather than be made at the lower levels.
The female CEO who is personally unhappy
While these women may well continue to enjoy organisational success, it is likely that other forms of success, particularly in their private lives, will elude them. Difficulties in relationships are not uncommon for these women because many of the relationships they have in the organisation are power relationships meaning that their position determines who they are and how they behave. However, when that CEO robe is removed and the unadorned woman is there alone with herself, she then has to relate from the point of view of her person rather than from her position. If her self-esteem is low, which it usually is, she will not cope in relationships – she will avoid intimacy and long term relationships will prove difficult or unsustainable.
What sort of partners do these women tend to attract? There can be two extremes in the types of relationships these women form. On the one hand, they may seek out so-called “wimpish” men who will not represent any threat to the woman’s power position. But on the other hand, they could choose very powerful men who likewise prefer superficial relationships. The result is a marriage of convenience, where the partners are able to relate on an intellectual level, concentrating on task-related issues or shared experiences in organisational settings. Passion is frequently lacking in these relationships, since they are based on money (mostly) or some sort of task or status. When you have that sort of a female CEO, they generally will not have their own way of working in an organisation. They will tend to adopt ideas from outside. These ideas tend to come from “tried and true” or proven management approaches, a fad of the time, the going cultural response or some popular training theme. It is not just women who seek out role models in these situations; successful men with the same characteristics will do likewise, as we shall see when we come to look at men in the next post.
Working on your “problem behaviour”
If you are one of these successful women who can recognise some of these issues in your own behaviour, what might you do to reduce their harmful impact? If you wish to do this and, at the same time, develop your organisation into a more robust and more efficient one, you could do some self-exploring on intimate issues. Intimate issues do not involve just sexuality; there are all kinds of intimate issues about oneself.
Intimacy relates to knowing oneself, being aware of one’s outward behaviour and understanding why we behave the way we do and what our impact is on others. It involves the ability to be alone with oneself and accepting of our weaknesses and strengths.
This can be achieved through self-reflection, a mentor, a group process involving people in a similar position to you (e.g. a CEO) or a psychologist who has an understanding of organisations and who also has good counselling skills.
Let’s summarise what is involved with these approaches:
Self-reflection: This involves spending half an hour each day analysing the day you’ve just had. Here is a way to do it. Look at the content of your day as listed in your diary. Put the content to the side and use it as a reference, then try to remember your interaction or non-interaction for all those time periods. Ask yourself questions like:
• Did I feel comfortable or not? Why?
• Did the other party/parties feel comfortable? Why?
• What does it sound like in my head (if you think verbally)?
• What does it look like (if you think in pictures)?
• Should I change anything about my behaviour in the future and why?
A Mentor: This involves speaking with a person who can and will challenge your “here and now behaviour” and offer alternatives as possibilities for you to consider, rather than giving direction necessarily. This mentor may make you feel uncomfortable and should challenge your current personal style but not necessarily cause you to change it. Usually your mentor would have had some background as a CEO and is preferably another female. (This is where your networking really comes in handy).
A Group Process: This involves a group of women CEOs interacting about being and relating as a CEO in their organisation and following a process similar to the “Self-reflection” approach mentioned earlier.
A Psychologist: This involves speaking to a registered psychologist who has good counselling skills in an organisational context and who can analyse the full “system” that you are in and can challenge not only the “here and now” but also deal with the past. The psychologist may also make you feel uncomfortable but would also offer you support in handling that “uncomfortableness”.
Some CEOs choose to use all the above approaches while others prefer to concentrate on one or more depending on the circumstances. Be assured that these approaches always bring positive outcomes in a short space of time for both the CEO and the organisation.
