Results at the Top. Annis Barbara

for women tended to place the onus on “fixing” women. Many of the companies' management and leadership development programs were initially designed for their male leaders and were now being used to define women's leadership and essentially help them fit into a sameness model – instead of mining for their own unique leadership styles.

      Focus on the Numbers

      Many companies assumed that critical mass through quotas was the answer – that it was just a matter of stepping up their annual recruitment efforts. The problems they were having with the retention of women hires were assumed to be bad fits or women leaving for work‐life reasons.

      Millions are spent each year on recruiting more women into companies at the entry level and on hiring them directly into senior management roles. The reality is that over the past forty years, women have done no better than to represent 22 percent of senior management, which has changed very little in the past ten years, and less that 5 percent of CEO positions.4

      Work‐Life Flexibility Policies

      These programs are a great value to many women, especially at the entry and mid‐management level. The companies in the study used work‐life flexibility programs as an engagement strategy to bring young women into a company, but they had little to no impact on advancing women to senior positions.

      You'll discover that even in countries that legislate that companies must comply with work‐life flexibility policies, women's representation in senior management is no better than the global average.

      Women's Mentors

      There were a few flaws that surfaced in mentoring programs. Companies found that their mentors, both women and men, were not trained on the differences that often arise when mentoring women and men.

      Moreover, women mentees were matched with women mentors instead of being matched with men. Aside from there not being enough women in leadership to mentor the number of women mentees, in many instances, women‐to‐women matches didn't have the right chemistry and failed.

      Diversity Workshops

      Diversity and compliance training for men generally created a reverse effect. Men were trained to ignore gender differences and treat everyone the same. They became overly sensitive, politically correct, and afraid to acknowledge any gender differences.

      Male executives often confide in us that out of fear of unconsciously saying or doing something wrong or insensitive, they will become cautious and brief in their discussions with women; many have difficulty giving critical feedback to women on their teams; and some even admit that they avoid interactions with women, especially in informal settings.

      In Chapter 2, you're going to see some interesting statistics on the number of sex‐discrimination charges filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the United States over the past eighteen years. It seems that diversity‐training programs, including unconscious bias training, which began around twenty years ago, are not having the desired effect. We answer the question: “Why?”

WHAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE

      We expect that our observations and recommendations will challenge some men and women. We know the reaction in some cases will be, “You cannot say that,” or “You cannot make that generalization.” But the topics we are going to discuss are things we have observed time and time again that explain why men still dominate today's corporations despite forty years of diversity efforts in trying to affect otherwise.

      We reveal why many gender diversity programs, with all the best of intentions, are doing little to nothing to change company cultures to be more inclusive and improve the gender equation. Some companies we know spend tens of millions of dollars a year on women's initiatives, with negligible change in women's representation in the senior ranks.

      “I believe, Barbara, that our describing the Diversity Money Pit programs will for sure challenge some readers. Those who develop and manage those diversity programs annually have the best of intentions; but with so little success to show year after year, I sometimes wonder, who are the beneficiaries of those best intentions? Let me explain what I mean.”

BRUSHING YOUR HORSE

      I have always enjoyed working with horses. Since I was a child I spent summers at my grandparents' farm and I have always been around horses. Horses are large animals and you need to give them respect when you are near them. They have many ways to (sometimes intentionally but mostly unintentionally) deliver you a bruise that you will remember for a long time. So what has this got to do with improving corporate performance?

      I remember one day we were putting my horse away after having been out for a ride. You normally hang up the tack, inspect and clean the horse's feet, and make sure that the horse is in a good condition. I remember saying to my uncle who was watching me and who taught me most of the things I knew about caring for my pony, “Do you think my horse might like it if I brushed him?” My uncle replied, “I don't know whether the horse really cares but you would probably enjoy it.”

      At the time I did not think much about his comment, as I was eight years old. So I brushed my horse and felt really good that he looked well groomed. Of course, the moment we let the horse go into the paddock field he found a nice dusty spot and proceeded to roll around in it, undoing all of my fancy brushing work.

      This comment stayed with me for the rest of my life. Why did my uncle say that? Perhaps he meant that I should go ahead and spend my time and effort on something that felt good to me. The fact that no one else (including my horse!) seemed to care does not matter. I received satisfaction from doing it. But he also meant that I should not think just because I liked it and felt good that anyone else really cared. Be careful not to transfer your feelings into the head of another, even a horse. Wow! Profound! Standing in a stable it was just as if Aristotle himself had delivered the lesson for the day.

      So humans do things that make them feel better. No surprise. But this is not (always) for selfish reasons; they often project their satisfaction on to others without even realizing they are doing that. Despite the good intentions of many, this can happen even when others are in no way sharing in that satisfaction. Could it be that management programs are put in place that are more about the satisfaction of their authors than they are about satisfying their goal?