Take Away From Presenting on Multi-Generation Management in Corporations

I had such fun this morning presenting to emerging leaders in the local community on multi-generation in corporations. The audience was comprised of mainly Gen Y and a sprinkling of Gen X and no Boomers except me. I love their energy and interaction. Before my session, I sat in on another and watched how everyone interacted and joined in. Typically in presentations made up of older generations, there is not much interaction unless it's asked for. In fact, I have been in some sessions where you could drop a pin and hear it as there is silence until the speaker came on. Many people contributed to the conversation and all clapped and laughed, learned something but also enjoyed the spontaneity  of the participants. All smart, ambitious young people who are interested in growing, learning and contributing. They asked questions about how to talk with the Boomers and Traditionalists and how they can convey what they feel they can bring to the company. How can they get around the myth that they are considered lazy, laid back, not committed or impatient to move to the top.

It all boils down to communication and creating a bridge to close the gap between the leading styles, motivation differences, myths and misinformation. One suggestion I gave them was to take a Boomer or Traditionalist to lunch or have coffee with them to hear their story, legacy or how they became successful. During this conversation, they could then share their own frustrations and beliefs and work on bridging this gap so they develop respect for each other and an understanding of who each other is.  This person can then be your ally or better yet your mentor. The Traditionalists and Boomers can mentor younger generations about the value of relationships and the Younger generations can teach the older generations the efficiencies and conveniences of technology. Hopefully more and more companies will see the value of multi-generation and how to bring out the best in people but also create clarity around the differences.

Women and Leadership Part II - Baby Boomer Leadership Style

Last month we began the series by presenting the history of women’s movement into leadership positions. Our focus on leadership now shifts to leadership styles and the difference in the approach of men and women to the task of leading. One thing that became clear as we developed this segment is that the traits we see in leaders and the approaches to leadership challenges are common among both men and women.  The difference is not in the traits of being a leader but in how they are expressed. 

The research into what constitutes good leadership identified a series of attributes that are found in both men and women leaders. Three of the most critical of these attributes are internal and appear to form the basis of the attributes that are expressed in their external manner. These external expressions are the reasons that why men and women are viewed as being so different in the way they lead.  This article will discuss these traits and discuss differences and similarities as well as provide examples of how this plays out in organizations today.

As we discussed in the first article, an individual’s management style comes from the culmination of society norms and life experiences as well as from an individual’s intellectual capacity and drive.  In discussing leadership traits we must understand the generational norms that leaders grew up with and the role they play in making leaders what they are today.

Today’s leaders are part of the Baby Boomer generation; the large population of individuals born between 1946 and 1964.  For these individuals, leadership was clearly defined as a “man’s’ prerogative learned from parents who set optimistic expectations for their sons and lower, more traditional expectations for their daughters.  From cowboy shows where the male hero arrived just in time to save the damsel in distress to the war hero movies, the men were tough take-charge individuals who didn’t worry about others concerns but charged full steam ahead to win the prize.  The women on the other hand were there to provide comfort to not only the leaders but to bring the rest together in support of the leader’s decisions.  While intellectually equal, women often were placed in the position of working to support getting the sons through college since sending daughters to college was a waste of money because they would end up getting married and never have to worry about competing in a man’s world.  Despite these societal norms, many female “baby boomers” did achieve degrees in higher education and entered the work force in large numbers as inflation drove the need for more family income just to survive.  Ultimately these individuals raised in a society where there was distinct male and female roles, began to challenge each other for leadership positions and the “war of sexes” emerged; a battle it seems we are still fighting today. 

The internal leadership attributes common to both men and women are Leadership Expectation; Leadership Legitimacy and their Internal Focus.

• Leadership Expectation

Because today’s leaders were raised in the era of “heroes” and male leadership, they have an internal expectation that they will advance to a leadership role.  As a result they tend to express more confidence in themselves in subordinate roles and are not hesitant to step into smaller leadership opportunities.  This is expected of them just as they expect that opportunities will come their way. 

Women on the other hand do not have this built in expectation.  They are most likely to see themselves as the “right hand man”, providing details, direction and support as the male leads the task force or mission.  When an opportunity for leadership comes along they may at first shrink from taking it on, but once accepted, approach the task in a very different way.  Women do not expect to be chosen as a leader.

• Leadership Legitimacy

Since the leadership function has been “expected” by men when it occurs, they have no doubt that the choice made is a legitimate one. Typical announcements of male leadership choices are made through company-wide emails or memos which contain few, if any supporting comments as to why this particular individual was chosen.  When accepting these new roles men focus on the attainment of the goals they have set out to achieve such as “getting the team winning again”.

The same sense of legitimacy is felt within the individuals who will be lead by this new male leader.  And while there may be some comments here and there about how someone else would have been a better choice, these comments quickly subside as changes take place and work is assigned.  New male leadership rarely is questioned or requires the endorsement of executive management to be perceived as legitimate in an organization. 

The opposite is frequently true for women.  The announcement of their advancement into a leadership role is not an expectation of women or viewed within themselves as their “right’.  Women frequently express how hard they have worked and what they have accomplished in order to justify why they were selected for the position despite the fact that others may see the selection as positive and legitimate.  When accepting these roles women tend to explain and/or justify why they were chosen as a statement of what they plan to achieve. 

In addition to this internal justification, women more frequently require external endorsements in support of their selection as leaders.  While individuals within the organization typically accept new male leaders, women appear to need a higher level or external male figure to reassure the staff that the selection of a female is the right decision.

  

• Internal Focus

Every individual has an internal focus that, in part, drives the decisions they make and the opportunities they pursue.  This internal focus appears to be even greater in individual who strive to become leaders.  For men this internal focus is usually on themselves.  This is not to say that male leaders are selfish or narcissistic, lack empathy or are concerned only about themselves. Instead it is how they process information and make decisions.  They are concerned about ensuring the goals they have set are achieved; that the necessary steps are taken to move forward or reach a level of excellence. This motivation also brings along those that follow them and we only have to look at coaching awards or recipients of awards for achieving excellence to understand how valuable this attribute is. 

Women on the other hand are focused on the “we”.  Life experiences and training has programmed them to believe that collective achievements are better and in the long run more rewarding.  It is the “comfort” of knowing that everyone experienced the “thrill of victory” that drives the way they process information and make decisions.  The best example of this attribute is the way men and women describe how a team works.  Men will most commonly say that a team works best when each individual part of it has a job to do and if they do that job the team wins.  Women on the other had will say that each member of the team is there to support the other and that only by covering the weakness of any individual will the team, as a whole, win. 

Understanding these internal attributes provides some insight into the difference between men and women leaders. It’s what we see, hear and experience on the outside that creates the perception of an individual’s ability to lead.  Our research has shown that there are also three distinct external traits that can be used as a valid comparison between men and women and how they lead. These are Leadership Style, Leadership Communication and Emotion.

• Leadership Style

The easiest way to describe this is to say that men are “tough’ and women are ‘soft’ and while this seems way to simplistic to be meaningful there is truth in this statement.  Men, having been raised in an environment of heroes that conquer evil and triumph over unimaginable obstacles because they were tough both physically and mentally, tend to mimic that role in their approach to many leadership challenges.  In addition their staff appears to see them that way as well.  As an example, it is not uncommon for individuals to hesitate to ask for, or assume a negative response, when time off is needed while a big project is underway. Many believe that it would be seen as a sign of weakness and be reflected in their performance evaluation.

Soft leadership styles are most commonly associated with women.  Women’s internal perception of their societal role is that of providing comfort and guidance for making the best decisions, not directing it.  Challenges are met with a controlled response that is determined by the individuals of the group and problems are to be shared among all.  Staff members who face the problem of time off or other personal issues rarely hesitate to make the request of a female leader because they are confident that it will be granted and that the work will be picked up by members of the team. 

• Leadership Communication and Presentation

Men and women frequently communicate using different styles.  When communicating decisions that have been made or giving presentations to audiences, men generally have a more direct way of getting to the point.  Women however feel the need to explain or to justify the decision they have made.  They often feel compelled to look for an understanding of the problem as part of the solution and seek eye contact from their listeners as a sign that their rationale is understood.  Men typically do not have this need and because of those internal traits are not concerned that the rationale is understood or have the need to confirm this through eye contact.  After all they were put in the position to make these decisions. 

• Emotions in Leadership

While it has often been said that women are too “emotional” to provide good leadership, the truth is that all leaders are emotional.  It is just that the “emotions” displayed have been divided into good and bad emotions due to society’s perception of them.  One thing is certain; that good leaders are passionate about achieving their goals, changing things to reflect the “good” they want and passion is necessary to sustain the drive this requires. 

Women, when displaying this passion, are more likely to do it through the use of tears; expressions of disappointment or a plea for support and more effort.  Men on the other hand tend to express their passion in terms of anger or dismissal of individuals who have failed to achieve what was expected of them.  However all of these expressions are reflections of the passion, concern and hope that are a critical part of leadership. 

All of the attributes discussed in this article have been found in the workplace but are they necessarily common in the mortgage industry?  Canvassing both men and women have shown us that they have indeed played out in the mortgage environment and continue to be so today.  JoEllen Abate-McEntire, a credit risk management leader for many years, stated in one discussion that when she has lead group discussions with a male co-leader “the participants would downplay or ignore her suggestions only to have them been seen as inspirational” when presented by her male colleague.  Other individuals also expressed similar experiences as well as incidents that provide strong supportive evidence that the attributes described above are alive and well in our industry today. Jo Ellen also added “that all too frequently we see women attempting to lead by copying men’s styles.  When this happens it is not uncommon for them to be viewed as moody, emotional or worse.”  And copying styles is not limited to women alone.  Men, whether just copying as a reaction to criticism or just letting their natural tendencies show, are adopting some of the various attributes demonstrated by strong female leaders.  Such activities as team meetings which allow all members of the group to express thoughts and ideas; seminars on understanding how we individually process information; and the growth of individual leadership coaching often reflect what women leaders have been proposing for years, that collaboration and open communication is far more powerful than one person making a decision that may not necessarily benefit the majority.

But what about the future; there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that this industry is presently undergoing significant changes.  These changes include how the industry is run; corporately, individually and from a regulatory and consumer perspective.  How then must leadership change?  Is the answer to chose only men or only women to lead?   The answer to that question is that it’s going to take a combination of both men and women leaders and their identified strengths and qualities.

Today’s men and women leaders do not need to conform to each other’s styles and in fact if they did it would probably result in less effective leadership overall.  We need to collectively think about how we can be the leaders for the next generations. We need to enhance communication skills; bridge the gap in understanding how each group processes information and combine these skills sets and traits into a common leadership style; one that will fill today’s management offices as well as identifies what will be needed in the future. We all need to develop sensitivity to the social settings in which staff was raised and what that means in terms of how we lead and how the leaders of the future are developed.  The reality is that our best leaders combine the most effective of these traits and use them in the situation which best fits the need.  The combination of providing explanations for why things need to be done with the passion of caring that they do get done is by far much more effective.

Fortunately for the industry we are already seeing this happen.  Patricia Thornton, an experienced mortgage professional has seen this in action.  She has told us that “when leading groups she has been able to explain the group’s needs in such a way that both the men and women follow her direction with no question.”  Cindi Dixon, a long time leader in the industry tells us that "management roles in the lending industry have changed drastically over the past two decades.  Opportunities for women leaders have expanded as a result of their hard work and efforts and the doors opened for them by their male counterparts.  A recent conversation with a former Governor for the Mortgage Banker's Association who has spent over 30 years heading national mortgage operations reinforced this insight.  He attributed his success to the women executives he has mentored and recognized that they have provided a new, more holistic approach to managing in the industry.  We see much more collaboration today on reaching goals that are open and inclusive.  When all talents are being fully utilized, regardless of gender, our collective goals are much easier to achieve.”

But is what we see happening today sufficient or is there more work to be done?  One of the most critical things we need to acknowledge is that beginning in 2012 there will be more managers that are not part of the baby boomer generation.  These Gen X and Gen Y individuals grew up in a social environment that was very different than ours because we made it so.  We are the ones who told both our sons and daughters that they could be “anything they wanted to be”, that there were no pre-set standards or expectations or that the command and control way to manage was best.  Now we must find a way to manage them and educate them in a way that will survive and exceed our management abilities.  These generational issues and the “new” management approaches is the topic of the next Women in Leadership article. 

  

About the Authors

Barbara Perino, CPCC, ACC   Now an executive coach, is a 21-year veteran of the residential mortgage industry in national sales management capacity for property valuation and residential mortgage service providers. bjperino@coachbjp.com

Rebecca Walzak, CQM  Now a consultant in the area of operational risk management she is a 30-year veteran of the residential mortgage industry in risk management, operations and servicing environments.  Becky@rjbwalzak.com.

Sales Management

Here are a few things to think about when you are influencing your sales team to produce results in their approach to sales this year:

• Are you clear on what the strengths and values are of each of your sales team members?
• Do you have a clear understanding of where their challenges are in being successful?
• How good are your people in building relationships as sales is really about relationships.
• What type of follow up system do they have in place?  Many times it takes up to seven to eight follow ups before someone shows an interest in doing business with you.
• How organized are each of your team members? How do they track their prospects, clients and pipeline of business?  Do you use a user friendly contact management system like Sales Console? Is there an opportunity to offer training around this?
• Do you keep up with the trends of your industry and embrace technology to make everyone's job easier and more efficient?
• Are you aware that your staff is equally important as your clients? 
• How do you keep fresh with new ideas, new learnings, new business opportunities?
• 80% of business comes from 20% of your clients.  How often do you meet with your clients to find out what's going on with them?  What is new? What would they like to see differently? Where are there areas of improvement?
• Are you aware of the generational differences of your team and how this impacts how they are successful? How do you bridge the gaps between generation?
• Do you embrace new ideas that team members may have that would help you bring in more business?

All questions are food for thought. My advice to you is take the time to think over all or some of these questions and implement new ways of doing business to keep it fresh.

Women and Leadership

Women and Leadership: The Changing Role of Women –from a historical perspective

As the capital markets explosion and corresponding implosion reached its peak in 2008, a group of seasoned women mortgage professionals began to gather in a telephonic group to support each other and discuss topics of interest within the industry.  It was not unexpected then that one of the topics that popped up was “If women had been in charge, would we be in the same place we are today?’  Surprisingly there was no consensus within the group; thoughts ranged from “we all were involved” to ‘leadership was to blame” to “who knows”.  While recognizing that finding an answer to the question was probably not going to be something anyone could easily find, the group set out to examine how roles in this industry and business in general have changed over the past three decades and determine if, collectively a group of individuals with an average of over 20 years experience could develop some guidance as to what leadership attributes are best for handling current and future problems in our industry. 

We ended up with the idea of creating a “white paper’ on the subject of Women and Leadership: The Changing Role of Women. Because the topic is so broad, it was broken into four distinct discussions. This is the first of those discussions and Progress In-Lending will continue to publish the other three in its up-coming issues.  The topics involve an historic view of leadership; the cultural, generational and gender roles of leadership; what leadership will be needed in the future and finally an application of these conclusions to a current problem facing the industry today.  We begin this series of articles by discussing the changing roles of leadership for men and women over the last three decades.  

The Beginning of Change

From the start of the industrial age through the “revolutionary” times of the 1960s and 70s, the common leadership profile for any company was a man at the top of the hierarchy with various male managers reporting to him.  His decisions were carried out by this next level of management by communicating the necessary information to the staff. The staff then performed the functions necessary to meet the requirements set out by the president or CEO.  Women who worked in these businesses typically made up the clerical staff with the occasional woman acting as the supervisor of such a group.  This division of roles was so pronounced that in the 1960s it was common to see two separate sections of the help wanted ads; jobs for men and jobs for women. 

The 1980’s was the beginning of numerous changes within industry in general and the mortgage business specifically. At that point in time, the influence of several legislative initiatives regarding equal treatment and opportunity for minorities and women were beginning to be implemented.  Companies held sessions on accepting diversity and creating policies that retarded the advancement of women were either changed voluntarily or forcefully through the courts. Not only were companies lead by men, but senior positions within government, the legal system and state and local agencies were male dominated. 

It was also during this time that the S&L crisis resulted in realigning the primary source of mortgage products from the savings and loan business to independent mortgage lending operations.  With this change, the dynamics of the leadership structure and personnel responsibilities changed as well. Loan officers whom had previously been employed by S&Ls as mortgage originators and that were now out of business, set up shop as mortgage brokers.  The emergence of this entrepreneurial opportunity allowed women, as well as men, the chance to run their own companies, make their own decisions and realize the resulting survival or failure of the company was in their own hands. 

Larger mortgage lenders also began to recognize that by limiting women to clerical positions they were losing two opportunities; one was meeting the legislative demands for equal opportunities and one for taking advantage of women’s knowledge and experience by advancing male managers to higher levels of leadership and placing women in these vacated positions.  However the movement of women into these management functions was slow in coming and when achieved, resulted in only minimal acceptance of their role in management circles.  The history of one of today’s prominent female CEO demonstrates this elongated path to senior management.  Her biography shows that in the early 1980s she was promoted to branch manager, a position she held for nine years before moving into a regional management job.

The 1990’s

The emergence of information technology, begun in the 1980s, really began to make its impact felt and its potential recognized during the 1990s.  Technology programs began to replace or significantly reduce many of the clerical functions and many jobs were restructured or eliminated. Companies began to redesign processes to maximize the use of technology.

Also during this decade, companies that had previously been local or regional organizations began to expand into other regions of the country and even into other countries.  The idea that through the use of technology, management located in one city or region of the country could effectively oversee multiple production centers swept through all types of businesses at lightning speed.  And while it was true that higher levels of management could handle much of their responsibility from elsewhere, on-site management was still critical.  At this point, women with technical experience or with management experience at any level began to emerge as a natural choice for these positions.  With years of experience working through the details of organization, they understood better than their male counterparts what drove a successful organization and were ready, willing and able to help lead the organization in whatever role necessary.  Once given the opportunity, they easily migrated from a simple management role to providing real leadership. Despite this advancement in leadership functions, the roles assigned to these women were in areas of the company that were most frequently associated with females such as Human Resources or Accounting. 

The mortgage industry followed a similar pattern.  Lenders used this technology to support expanded operations and “point of sale” operations.  This allowed them to move into previously unreachable areas of the country without the expenses associated with building a supporting infrastructure.  This expansion in operational sites also required the expansion of personnel in the area to support the processing, underwriting, closing and back room operations.  While the division of these functions was different for various lenders, the result was the same; more of the personnel with the knowledge of how these functions were performed moved into management positions. Since these were mostly clerical jobs that had been largely female, the management promotions brought a large number of women into the mid-level management ranks.  At the same time, this expansion of business caused senior management to rethink the existing structure and as a result elevate some previous mid-level functions to the executive level.  Many of these mid-level positions were filled with women.  Although these positions were created at the senior level, creating the positions and promoting the personnel does not automatically create the underlying respect and recognition of authority.  Many times these women found themselves struggling to have their decisions respected by other senior managers, particularly when these decisions conflicted with others.  An example of this is the expansion of the underwriting function to a Chief Credit Risk position.  While it is not uncommon to have conflicts between this function and production, women seemed to find the implementation of their decisions to be much more difficult. 

These initiatives came about as it became obvious that the pool of men available to fill all these positions was inadequate and opportunities for women began to expand.  These expansions also opened up various management and leadership roles for women, although the overall senior management structure remained male dominated.  Whether it was lenders, mortgage insurance companies, trade associations or industry related vendors, women’s roles were expanding. 

Women however were able to utilize these opportunities to learn and grow into the responsibilities associated with higher level of responsibility.  Many successful women today were mentored throughout their careers.  These mentors, who provided guidance, encouragement and previously unheard of opportunities, were many times the male leadership in the organization.  Women, once promoted also were there as mentors for some of their subordinates.

There was another aspect of this unparalleled advancement in technology. Since it was a relatively new profession the management role models developed as it grew. As a result many of the senior management level positions were filled with the individuals who could best fulfill the role; and many times this was a woman.  As a result many of these technology companies not only had a large number of female senior management, but were in fact lead by a woman CEO.  In order to make effective decisions about technology, senior executives who were used to dealing only with men, found that they now had to work with women.  This experience helped to eliminate any unfounded prejudices that may have existed at the senior management level regarding women’s ability to lead and deliver results.  

The New Century

At the turn of the century “C suite” executives frequently were women. It was not uncommon to find women at the helm of a variety of organizations.  Today we see women at the head of major technology companies, entertainment giants, banking and finance companies and other businesses.  They also fill positions as heads of major universities, cabinet positions, as members of the Supreme Court, government agencies and generals in the armed services. It would undoubtedly be premature to say that women in general have achieved equality in executive level positions.  The reality is that during the first 10 years of this century, women have experienced executive management opportunities more frequently than in the past.  This does not mean that they have the same opportunity as a man, just that the probability is higher that these offers can occur. 

An overview of mortgage lending seems to send mixed messages to women.  At least three large lenders have promoted women to executive leadership positions while others have retreated back into the more traditional roles of men and women in business.  One of the most promising actions that have occurred is the growing number of women who are now starting up companies outside the entrepreneurial initiatives seen previously.  Several women have capital market firms that are experiencing steady growth and on-going success.  In addition, many women who have held executive level positions are leaving there traditional firms to venture into new opportunities involving consulting, human resources and operational support functions. 

Despite these advancements, the CEO position in most mortgage operations, as in other industries, continues to be men.  While the business norm continues to see men at these top leadership positions, those women who have assumed executive spots or created their own will be watched to see if they, in fact, are a leading indicator of the future or are a reflection of an industry that is experimenting with all options to resurrect dwindling profits and confidence in their business. 

In the next article in the series we will explore the attributes of leadership and explore what impact cultural, generational and gender elements have on the traditional leadership role and attempt to identify what attributes leaders of the future will need to have to be successful.

Authors:  Barbara Perino, CPCC, ACC – Executive Coach and Rebecca Walzak, President,rjbWalzak Consulting, Inc.  Contributors to the article are Zoe Goss, Consultant and Susan King, EVP-National Sales Director at e-TEC Appraisal.