Gender and Personality Empowerment in the Workplace
By Kirin Parmar, MCP, MSc, B.Arch, Certified Life Coach | Enneagram Consultant
Website: kirinparmar.com
Based on an Interview with Peter V. Neffenger, MPA, MA, MA, former Vice-Admiral of the US Coast Guard, Presidential Appointee as TSA Administrator (under President Obama) and now Independent Consultant , Motivational Speaker, and distinguished fellow at Harvard University’s National Preparedness Leadership Initiative, the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Center for Resilience[7] and Northeastern University’s Global Resilience Institute.[8]. All quotes below are Peter’s unless otherwise noted.
Editors: Pam Thomas, M.S., PCC – Leadership & Mindset Coach | Faculty Member, Assessor & Mentor Coach for The Executive and Professional Coaching Certificate Program, The University of Texas at Dallas AND William J. Bertucci, B.Sc, retired Caltrans Engineering Geologist | Mentor
Interview and Contributions
Observations:
About 15 years ago, on a visit, I had a casual chat with Peter who worked with the Coast Guard. I only knew him then as the lovely partner of a very cherished friend who had moved away with him. It ended with a quick conversation about the differences he experienced working with men vs women.
His comment was that whenever he commended female staff, they were quick to share credit, “Oh, but so and so also worked on this with me.” With the men, he’d often have to make a point of prompting – “By the way, did someone also work on this with you?” Nevertheless, Peter’s parting shot was that he equally appreciated both genders. I never forgot this and tapped him now to expand on our combined insights.
“The gender differences are stark. I’ve thought about this for much of my career. Men and women bring very different, and complementary – dynamics to a team. As a leader, we can use that to great advantage – to enable more dynamic, powerful and nuanced results and to better achieve success in our objectives.
Yet we have a world where much of how we approach leadership is predicated upon how men work together. It’s based on the way men interact in very specific and defined ways, and thus one that in many respects relegates women to being treated as just a different, perhaps “strange” version of men, rather than unique team members who bring very different perspectives to the fore.”
Peter V. Neffenger
What Peter particularly appreciates about women is “that they are comparatively very inclusive – it’s primarily true even of the most aggressive and ambitious women. They always talk in terms of the team that helps them succeed. This really speaks to the fact that women don’t often make it about themselves. On the downside, it’s common that women are just as often reluctant to take the credit. They tend to hold back on becoming too apparent or visible, so the company often does not get their best ideas coming through. They may subordinate too much. What women need to learn is that it IS NECESSARY to push through and know that they can do so without it being at the expense of others.”
By comparison, “men are more aggressively ambitious and don’t give up easily. They are comparatively better at moving ideas through the system. The downside is that they often do this at the expense of others. An overwhelmingly male-dominated workplace can easily suppress ideas from less aggressive members of a team – even other men. Men can, and should, learn that it IS NOT NECESSARY to advance ideas at the expense of others. They can actually be even more successful when they give credit to the community that got them there. Sharing credit increases trust and builds team cohesiveness and loyalty, which in turn leads to much more effective mission success.”
In combination with Peter’s observations, I came to the conclusion that both men and women get in their own way, as well as sometimes in the way of each other. It’s to do with misperceptions and misguided cultural conditioning handed down over the generations.
It’s not about women needing to ‘Lean In’ to self-impose an inferior version of men. Sure they do have to do some leaning in, while men need to do some leaning back. What we really need is for women to be supported and empowered to be the best of what they differently but equally contribute – as women. This has to be facilitated by 1) expert teachings about the differences and their full value, and 2) enlightened leaders who are trained in the skills to moderate and hold the space. We need to do this for however people define their gender as well for the range of different personality types that exist within both genders. Sometimes we do see roles flipped or more balanced in a gender – which can be disconcerting or very gratifying to see in motion.
Examples of the Different Values:
I’m going to showcase the different personality or gender values by using the vehicle of the Netflix series Suits. Despite some artistic license, Suits does a good portrayal of personalities that match the Enneagram’s system – in other words, realistic personality types.
In one episode, the conclusion was you can‘t measure someone’s value by just whether he or she ranks among the highest producers in billable hours per individual. Brian (in the story) is not the highest producer by this metric – BUT, through his holistic thinking abilities and valuing of interdependency, “he makes everyone around him better” – i.e., more successful for the company as a whole. Louis and Donna are the only ones to have the natural antenna or honed wisdom to see this. Donna enlightens Brian’s immediate supervisor Katrina, while their boss Louis, with the gift of strength of loyalty to someone he trusts, fiercely protects Brian’s role.
Donna, the secretary who finally understands her value enough to push and gain a hard-won elevation to COO, is the indispensable glue. She proactively weaves in and out of the personalities, like a director, spotting underlying needs, enlightening, motivating, calming, tying up loose ends and keeping the legal stars willing to function together for greater synergy. She is the key in preventing the firm from imploding.
Carla is excellent at keeping the high-strung Louis with his brilliant detective-like mind corralled with her calm demeanor and ability to set firm boundaries. Rachel and Harvey have the fierce loyalty and protective strength that stands by Mike – a good man who made a big mistake, who in turn protects Harvey and supports Rachel. Jessica, the primary name partner, is excellent at moderating impulsivity and funneling the hard-charging men with an efficient eye for the bottom line. The male personalities are such starry hard-charging forces of what they pull off when they apply their incredible focused determination and assertiveness. And everyone is intelligent.
This aligns with a study I heard on the car radio that described women are similar to the worldwide web, noticing the connections between the boxes, healing and keeping it all together. Men are more intensely focused within defined boxes, and as a result of that focus, more men are recognized as “geniuses” (which I would qualify as what we recognize as genius in the traditional sense). And equally as a result of that focus, more men are “idiots” (which I would qualify as having blind-spots about what’s just outside their focus area).
I’m going to use the home situation as a clear example of typical male-female differences. (You can extrapolate to how a version of the same thing can and does happen at the office.) My kind partner (who has the courage to allow me to write about him), has accolades of excellence for his projects at work, while at home, if I put the trash right by the door, thinking I am being helpful with my ‘web’ memory, will walk around it to the kitchen cabinet, open that and mystifyingly ask where is the trash? (We finally improved the situation for both by listing the daily chores on a kitchen calendar which he does remember to look at.) Then there’s another example of the impressive and charming computer tech support guy who tells me that at home his daughters go “duh” at him.
So which is better – the director or the star? Both! They both have their form of genius. We need both equally – albeit working cooperatively in synergistic interdependence.
Women have been feeling resentful about ‘being made’ to stifle their voices and men have resented ‘being made’ to feel not enough. What happens in the home spills over to the workplace and vice-versa. For this or other reasons, any gender might resort to things like passive-aggressiveness, complaining elsewhere to relieve the pressure, micro-managing, blocking or back-biting.
To be fair, Peter’s experience is that what men in general do that can operate against women in the workplace is, “not necessarily done to be deliberately antagonistic. What is happening is more unconscious. It just is.” (Things like failing to 1) fairly recognize different values, 2) collaborate and share credit, 3) validate the rights of others to their needs, or 4) accommodate the scheduling needs of the primary care-givers of society’s shared dependents (children, the sick, the elderly) – by scheduling important decision-making meetings within non-overtime business hours.) I do agree with this. AND it’s important to note that there are also deliberate acts of overtly unhealthy behavior against women (mostly by men but even by women).
For example, I have heard firsthand from a former female colleague how a male manager responded to her during an annual review: “Why do you need a raise? You have a husband.” Similarly, I know a female executive assistant whose past boss deliberately hires women because he can get away with paying them less for their work. She was told she was NOT to offer any salary increases during annual reviews, knowing that women tend not to ask.
Reasons why women ask less than men can include:
1) Cultural conditioning that leads to a) believing they have to be easy on others by not expressing wants or needs b) their own undervaluing c) their own over-valuing of men.
2) Enhanced fears about firings due to women a) knowing men are perceived to have more value and b) needing a cap on total hours they are available to work. This fear is there despite the fact that anyone with self-imposed tighter deadlines (like women with dependents) are among the most responsible, productive workers within each hour for which they are paid.
3) A misplaced trust that the employer would be ethical about recognizing their worth – because that’s what a typical woman would do.
A major key to incorporating the quieter voices (female or male) is the leaders. Their philosophy is what permeates the workplace.
Many of these leaders are struggling to understand what needs to change. Leaders have the same issues as everyone in terms of needing to learn to value the full spectrum of human potential. As the late Stephen R. Covey believed, “Leadership is communicating others’ worth and potential so clearly that they are inspired to see it in themselves.” Part of the problem in missing this skill among our leaders, lies in society’s concept of what a selected leader should be like. It’s been skewed toward one type – the aggressive, ambitious asserter who is very independent, and much more competitive and controlling than interdependent and collaborative.
When Peter initially entered the role of leadership, he was however fortunate to be mentored that leadership requires a completely different mindset to be successful. As he states, “It’s not about doing things oneself any more. It’s about empowering and supporting others to do the doing. A leader’s role is to help the team see the future so they can help you build the future. Use the collective talent.”
“All this is relevant whether it’s a tiny or big organization. (Yet) Very few people, as they get more senior, understand how different it is to get to the next level. A leader who feels that “only I know the answers” leads to dysfunction because it shuts down new ideas. When everyone subordinates we end up with a bad decision. An adamant boss stifles innovation. Worse, it prevents someone who sees something wrong from coming forwards. Leaders of all levels need to be open to and aware of giving the permissions and demonstrating the actions needed to solicit creative new ideas. The ability to do this has very large societal implications. It’s really about building community.”
“In the workplace, teams need to be more interactive. Men do work in teams, but, many times, in focused roles within them. The analogy would be like being on a football team. You are either a quarterback or center or tackle or defensive end etc. These are defined positions with set boundaries. It’s very unusual to break these boundaries.” “A team that comprises a whole panel of people in tightly defined roles might get good short-term results, but may not get the best long-term outcomes. It’s more ideal to knit together the roles in a cohesive way. People might have unusual ideas that are more creative because they are not bound by a specific role. They might have hobbies that have taught their minds to work in other ways. People also have more than one talent and we don’t need to pigeon-hole them into just one. We should do our best to bring forth and take advantage of their other talents. The value of having diverse groups is that they break down the inherent ways to thinking – that is, if you are attuned to it. If not attuned, it can lead to the sort of breakdown where one gets mired in reacting “That’s not my job or your job, why are you telling me these things?”.”
Recommendations:
1) Leaders, managers and staff need to become more informed about the gifts and challenges of their gender and their core personalities.
Self-awareness is key. A growing number of companies have already been using personality assessments. The Enneagram personality system which has gained traction over the Myers-Briggs assessment is amazingly precise. It is also rich with information, yet relatively easy to understand and apply. Two top enneagram educational centers (some differences in teaching style but of equally high and accurate caliber) are at: (https://www.enneagramworldwide.com/) or (https://www.enneagraminstitute.com/). More can be found at https://www.
2) Leaders, managers and staff need to engage in a path for growth.
A growing number of enlightened companies are now sponsoring coaching. Sponsored or not, investing in coaching is an accelerated way to expand perceptions and improve choices. It is has a big payoff for the rest of one’s life. We need to change the mindset to see that it is strength and not weakness to seek out and harness the gifts of others to our gifts, thus synergizing interdependently. We need strategies to free us all up for where our gifts are most productive. When we do ‘less’, we actually accomplish ‘more’. Where our focus can concentrate, our neural pathways grow dense and vibrant. As in the book ‘Talent is Overrated’ by Geoff Colvin, talent does not go far on its own. It is self-driving energies going into repeated practice in the area of our greatest passion and talent that hones exceptional performance. Since women have been more trapped and dispersed by multi-tasking, this freeing up of focus will lead to an incredible amount of under-tapped potential.
Some people of any gender will need to learn how to set boundaries to protect a fair share of time for focused work.Some people need to learn to validate the boundaries of others. And some people need to learn to use a system that keeps them organized or checking-in, so they minimize the fallout on others. Everyone needs to be courageous and graciously appreciative about others spotting them.
Constructive communication techniques need to be proactively taught and practiced. They have rarely been modeled from one generation to the next.
3) Leadership needs to be able to moderate a diverse team.
Leaders have to act with consciousness and intention. “To create the balance, sometimes the alphas need to be put on hold to avoid drowning out the other voices. It’s also important to “never have a boss in the room with a subordinate when there is sensitivity around directly challenging authority”.”
It helps to preface meetings by clarifying the expectation of space being held and contributions being valued from everyone. E.g., “If you are here, it’s because I think you add value to the challenging problems. I expect you to participate.” (Without attacking, ask) “If you think you don’t have anything to say then ask yourself why you are here. What talent, way of thinking or intellect have I seen in each of you, that has brought you into the room? It’s important for all of us to have an opportunity to speak so I will make sure I call on each of you.” Then use their names to call on them. What you don’t want to do is make diversity a specific theme. This means not saying things like “we haven’t heard from the women in the room”, or “from Jimmy (aka the token African-American)”. Likewise, validate responses without tokenism.” “Collective voices are really powerful for dealing with problems towards the most hopeful outcome. Use the approach that there’s no right answer. Focus on the fact that there are lots of questions that can be used to tease out a whole range of possibilities. A question could be “Let me ask you your opinion – what would that mean to you?” Or, “If it landed on your desk, how would you approach it?” “How will it affect you and the world around you?” Then you get people engaged. A response might be “I think my team might reject that and here’s why.” Using lots of questions enables problem-solving to reach a range that is fascinating. Moderating is a very deliberate skill-set to get people to recognize that it’s a group and not an individual problem to solve.”
“The best way to get people as functional as possible is to make their happiness contingent on their ability to work together and not on making the leader happy”.
Soliciting questions is a learned activity that requires training. It needs the use of situational exercises that make people really think. “What we want is to get people disagreeing in ways that result in ideas. Embracing the fact that disagreement leads to ideas.”
4) A leader/moderator needs to be protective of people’s time and productivity.
1) Inclusiveness does not have to mean that everyone really needs to attend every meeting. A strategy could be to have key people attend. Those with inclusive and communicative abilities in first gathering input from other team members. A moderator needs to funnel discussion to stay on track. “Do not let meetings take forever to be inclusive, but recognize that it does make a difference.”
2) There really can be too much work to do. Freeing up time allows the space to think and strategize for better efficacy and prioritization within the bigger picture. Do things need to be re-prioritized, automated, eliminated or delegated more appropriately, before apportioning what’s left to be done? Can 80% quality be good enough for this kind of work? Leaders, managers and supervisors (and home partners) need to learn how to proactively inform and constructively set limits so others can understand the true implications and make wiser choices regarding how and where energy is apportioned. Staff need to be empowered to similarly manage upwards. Staff need adequate time for self-care (rest, exercise and free play to stimulate the creative juices). It’s about long-term sustainability of individuals as well as society. In other words: Protecting the geese that lay the golden eggs.
5) Leaders, managers and staff need to support “the deepest human values” (Al Gore).
I’ve personally met some wonderful men who have been a heart-warming support in propelling my own successes. Where even one caring sentence, de-stressed me into clarity and movement. In fact, one lovely man told me he had not realized how impactful a caring approach could be until he saw how what he said had such an immediate effect on the quality of what I quickly produced.
If we get into sheer numbers, women on average, being more relational and nurturing, are a huge asset in how much they notice and then support and enhance others.
Arthur had the right idea about a round table and being all for one and one for all. Perhaps the reason it imploded is because he did not balance the amazing thrusting, competitive, determined focus of the men, with the amazing holistic picture-thinking, consensus-seeking and healing caring of the more relational gender or personalities.
Summary
Summarizing the above, we need to 1) recognize the vast under-tapped potential of the different strengths of all human beings and invest in a path for growth, 2) understand that the valued strength of a competitive spirit (in unleashing ingenuity and productivity) is also a double-edged sword when it creates the distrust and territorialism that leads to undermining, under-resourcing and ‘ladders going up against wrong walls’. 3) value collaborative work and decision-making where it leads to synergistically improved and more sustainable solutions, 4) protect the available value women offer by accommodating their scheduling needs. 5) Hold the space for all voices, 6) Use questioning techniques that engage brains to uncover more variables – and integrate “full, complete and accurate measurements of value (intangibles that lead to long-term sustainability)…. into market calculations” (Al Gore), 7) Communicate constructively including being supportive rather than demeaning of areas in anyone, that are not their particular strengths, 8) Change the mindset that it is a strength and not a weakness to harness the gifts of others to our gifts. Synergize interdependently. 9) At work and home, prioritize, automate, eliminate or delegate – even where we are capable ourselves (e.g. outsource to virtual assistants, handymen and maids). 10) Use time and energy more strategically 11) Practice Self-care 12) Support “the deepest human values”.
What I would love to see in leaders is that they harness and lean into more of the strengths of others so they free up their own energies to evolve into where they are the most needed – to understand the big picture and navigate the ship. “To see the future so others can help build it”. It’s about letting go of control or perfectionism in order to empower and stimulate minds to grow more leaders and better workers to share the burden of seeing and doing to forge ahead.
Now, look at the cup on the right. Consider how the juice still has the value of the juice regardless of the type of cup. It’s still what people come to consume. Yet, by letting in the contributions of others with grace and gratitude, the juice now offers a more enhanced, even transcending experience. The juice gives even better value and potentially attracts yet more consumers. The ‘gift’ of inclusion you gave gives back to you.
Articles posted here are the result of intensive research, synergizing and synthesizing. The goal is to create value-rich, easy-to-read, insightful pieces that fit into busy lives. If you would like to participate in healing and empowering the global community, I would so very much appreciate your help in passing this gift along by forwarding or re-posting this. In doing so, you will turn this into your gift to others.
I welcome your constructive comments and additional insights which you may offer for posting below:
