Why We Should All Love Female Bosses

In a career spanning more than two decades and three continents, I have reported to bosses of various nationalities, personality types and a solid mix of both sexes. My bosses have also run the gamut in ability and lack thereof. I have had smart, helpful and wise bosses as well as mean, incompetent, lazy and insecure ones. However, I can say without hesitation that given a choice I will always work for a female boss, despite the fact that I have had a few mean and incompetent female bosses.

Sure, I love the fairer sex but it has nothing to do with male-female attraction and chemistry and everything to do with management skill and competence. In my experience, women have time and again demonstrated vastly superior decision-making, judgement and people skills to those of their male counterparts; and it has little to do with aptitude, business intelligence or experience.

When I started working it was rare to find senior female executives within the management ranks, apart from in the advertising industry. My generation also grew up in a society where men served as the career role models and breadwinners, while mothers were predominantly homemakers. Even mothers who worked did not have ‘power’ jobs and it was very rare for them to harbour serious career ambitions.

Even though advertising had a larger percentage of women, there was still a stigma attached to reporting to a woman, something that was routinely discussed in hushed tones during male bonding and late night drinking sessions. Women were simply not taken as seriously as the men. While I never viewed women as inferior or lacking in ability, I had never experienced having a direct female boss either, so had no idea what to expect when I did for the first time in my second year. Despite the realities of a male-dominated world, I can say that I had no personal bias and approached my female boss on the same merits that I had every male boss. Perhaps this helped me where most of my peers struggled, but the point I want to make is not about having an open mind but about hard scientific evidence for the reasons women make better bosses and leaders.

I could wax eloquent about why I think female bosses are better than their male counterparts, but rather than have you take my word for it I want to reference the vast research now available to support my personal experiences.

A 2012 research study titled ‘Women vs. Men in Leadership’ featured in the Harvard Business Review found that “at every level, more women were rated by their peers, their bosses, their direct reports, and their other associates as better overall leaders than their male counterparts.” The study, based on 30 years of research, measured competencies used to define management traits required for ‘overall leadership and effectiveness’.

It further found that “…two of the traits where women outscored men to the highest degree — taking initiative and driving for results — have long been thought of as particularly male strengths.” (Source: Are Women Better Leaders than Men?).

Even in one of the last remaining bastions of male domination and chauvinism, the world of technology start-ups, a recent study by Illuminate Ventures finds that hi-tech companies run by women are more “capital-efficient than the norm” and companies “that are the most inclusive of women in top management achieve 35% higher ROE.” (Source: Illuminate Ventures).

Another analysis done by Dow Jones VentureSource of more than 20,000 VC backed companies in America between 1997 and 2011 found that the successful start-ups had more women in senior positions. “They had more than twice as many women in top jobs like C-level managers, vice presidents, and board members than their unsuccessful counterparts did.” (Source: Bloomberg BusinessWeek).

As I mentioned earlier, I do not believe this success is due to the fact that women are smarter than men, or that they possess some innate management skill that men lack; competence and experience in management vary with people but are possessed by both women and men. In my estimation the single most important reason women excel and make more effective leaders boils down to one fundamental difference between the two sexes: ego.

Here is how I can most simply explain it; the majority of my male bosses (and most men) are unable to take ego out of any equation. The male ego always gets in the way of better judgement and making a better decision. For the vast majority of men, anybody questioning a decision they have made is seen as a direct challenge to their authority. God forbid that a man has to admit that he was wrong; this is considered a cardinal sin and perceived by men as a sign of weakness. Even the notion of listening to other people’s ideas or changing their view based on input from their team can be construed as an inability to lead.

In fact, I would say that most men would rather be seen to be sticking to their guns than doing the right thing, especially if it means admitting they were wrong. The male ego is conditioned to be more concerned about projecting a powerful image and less about achieving the right outcome. This to me is the reason women excel and will continue to thrive.

The majority of women are able to put their egos aside when they need to and as a result also show genuine empathy toward co-workers, subordinates and direct reports. They are willing to admit when they are wrong and ask for help – all in the interest of achieving a better outcome. Women are not shy about seeking guidance from their teams or asking the advice of superiors when they believe it will help them make a better decision and lead to a better result.

This is not about not being tough. All the women I worked with could be tough as nails when necessary. It is about not needing to constantly project power the way men feel they must. In short, a man will do the wrong thing knowingly rather than admit he is wrong.

Interestingly, a new study in the field of psychology supports my theory and personal experiences about women in the workplace; “…in times of stress male subjects become more egocentric and less able to properly respond to social situations. Women react in exactly the opposite fashion, becoming more “prosocial,” and able to relate to others in times of stress.” (Source: PBS Newshour).

Many experts have opined that in order to break the corporate glass ceiling, women need to become more like men. I completely disagree.

I believe women need to continue being true to themselves and show men a better way to lead, one that empirical evidence shows can lead to healthier, happier and more productive work environments and employees, AND better business results.

p.s. my apologies to the male species for blowing the lid on the 200,000 years male created, perpetuated and dominated world!

Why Ron Johnson’s JC Penney Experiment Failed

Ron Johnson is credited with delivering two of the most successful retail models of this century as the man behind Target and Apple Stores. So what went wrong with JC Penney?

It seems that Johnson decided to ignore his own tenants and instead chose the path that many other corporate leaders seem to follow today – he simply changed the most superficial aspects of the JC Penney brand – the logo, colours, slogan and physical retail environment and delivered it via a shiny new ad campaign. He completely forgot to change the things that matter more and are responsible for delivering a successful brand experience; the company culture, internal and front-line employee’s buying into the vision and having the training and commitment to deliver on it. And I believe another thing he missed or underestimated, before rolling out his re-invention, was the core JCP customer appetite for the pace and extent of change.

Many corporations still believe that advertising and marketing can compensate for lack of a quality product or a great customer experience. It is a shortcut that will ALWAYS fail. This is an age old battle we in the advertising industry have fought with clients who do not want to spend the time or invest the money to build a truly great brand. They want quick, easy and cheap ways to a successful brand. There is not one. Advertising campaigns can only sell what already exists; they cannot create what does not. In fact, I would argue that you end up damaging your company and brand more by making promises that your product and customer experience do not deliver. In the end, customers are less likely to forgive or try you again. The man who at both Apple and Target was the antithesis to this fast and easy way seemed to succumb to external pressures with JC Penney and try to deliver a massive turn-around in a few quarters rather than over a period of years.

With every brand re-invention you have to start by answering two fundamental questions; what still works for the brand and should be carried forward, and second how far can you move forward without losing your most loyal customers; while ensuring you gain new ones. This is not about finding the best possible compromise but it is about ensuring that you don’t throw the baby out with the bath water and lose your most valuable customers by creating something that is so alien to them, so unfamiliar that they no longer have an emotional connection with the brand. Also, you have to be cognizant of the fact that old brands have a long history and bring with them baggage, so you have to move them forward and update them in ways that do not allow you a totally clean slate, like Mr. Johnson had with Apple Stores. Perhaps, Mr. Johnson decided to try and re-invent this old brand like he had a clean slate, without understanding what worked and what his most loyal customers would not be willing to live without, at least in the short-term. As a result he alienated his most loyal customers before he had the time to attract a new customer.

Mr. Johnson should have spent his first year simply unveiling his vision with internal management and employees with an aim to start building support, passion and committed to delivering this vision to customers; while taking time to study JC Penney’s brand history and better understand their most valuable customers. All this much before any shiny new ads and re-designs hit TV channels and store shelves. One thing I will say in his defense is that Wall Street is responsible in large part for creating an environment of quarterly results mentality; where CEO’s are under tremendous pressure to deliver growth every few months. This is simply not the way you can ever build a successful company and brand. It takes time and years of investment and management commitment to create the likes of an Apple, Amazon, IBM or American Express. That said, there will always be external pressures and corporate leaders also need to push back (on Wall Street and investors) so they can take the time to bring all the stakeholders on board with their vision, before leading the way in executing it on far more realistic timelines.

#Netflix and the New Red: Act 2

In July I wrote about Netflix poor handling of their recent price hikes and the seemingly callous and arrogant manner in which they made the announcement and dealt with the subsequent customer outcry. Read here: https://brandsandbottomlines.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/netflix-and-the-new-red/

Since the price hike took effect Netflix has lowered its estimates by at least one million subscribers and its share price has dropped about 25%. Sadly, they did not heed the warning of thousands of negative comments or customer threats to close their accounts. It was not until their share price started to drop that Reed Hastings mea culpa surfaced.

Today, they took their recent actions to an even more confusing level when Reed Hastings offered an apology for the way in which the earlier changes were handled.

“In hindsight, I slid into arrogance based upon past success,” Hastings said. “We have done very well for a long time by steadily improving our service, without doing much CEO communication.”

But then rather than offer an olive branch to customers lost or currently on the fence, which would have been the most logical thing to do, it seems they completely panicked and lost the plot. Hastings  went on to announce that he was breaking Netflix into two companies; renaming the DVD-by-mail service to Qwikster and keeping Netflix for online streaming and gaming.

This change will further inconvenience customers, who will now have to sign up for two different accounts, create two queues and pay two companies on their credit cards each month and not be able to avail of both streaming and mail service from a single provider. Even more embarrassing for Netflix, the Twitter handle for @Qwikster is already being used someone who has a pot smoking Elmo as his photo, and tweets stuff like “Don’t believe that nigga that sed the bought my shyt cuz it aint tru.”

Hastings ended the blog post by saying, “Both the Qwikster and Netflix teams will work hard to regain your trust. We know it will not be overnight. Actions speak louder than words.”  I believe that Netflix’s latest actions just made this task twice as hard.

Will the #Apple fall far from the tree?

First, I want to wish Steve Jobs the best and hope his health improves.

I guess we all knew this day would come. The board, the shareholders, the employees, the analysts and the evangelists; it’s just that we had all hoped it would be much, much later.

Whether you are a fan of Steve Jobs or not, what nobody can dispute is the fact that he single-handedly turned a fledgling company and tired brand into the world’s most envied and admired; one that is now on a path to become the world’s first trillion dollar company. However, what is most fascinating about the Apple story is how he achieved this. His vision, passion and workaholic nature are well-known but Jobs took this to another level entirely. It is said that he was involved in every decision right down to determining the type of wire that will secure MacBook’s in the Apple stores – that is both incredible and insane. Jobs’ is the only CEO I can think of who seems to go against conventional wisdom in every sense and still come out on top, every time. He is a classic example of someone who zigs, when everyone else is zagging.

Most CEO’s will tell you that the key to successfully growing your company, after you become a certain size, is to hire really smart people and then give them latitude to operate and a wide berth to do their jobs – and get out of the way. Not, like Jobs, remain involved in every minute decision; like what glass to use on the staircases of your retail stores. We know Job’s remained involved in every decision, even as Apple blew past Microsoft and Oracle to become the most valuable technology company on the planet.

Even more amazing is the fact that while the whole tech world seemed to acknowledge that the old Microsoft “proprietary” technology model was a failure and no longer sustainable in our new global ecosystem; filled with consumer demand and a need to constantly adapt and innovate in an open source way. So “open” has become the new buzzword for software development and management philosophies. Even companies like Procter & Gamble are now embracing this for rapid product prototyping, development and go-to-market strategies. On the other hand we have Apple who have created a completely closed and proprietary ecosystem for their products – and have been more successful than any other company. It is almost as if Steve Jobs’ philosophy and management style are completely counter-intuitive. This applies right down to the bets Jobs has made over the years. Like launching a tablet when everyone said that there was never going to be a market for a device that was not quite as small as a cellphone and not quite as powerful as a laptop; and we all know how that turned out.

We have been told that Apple has a very deep management bench and that may well be true but when a larger than life CEO like Steve Jobs vacates his position, he leaves a very rare and large hole in a company that few other leaders do.

So the 337 billion dollar question with Tim Cook is; how far will the Apple fall from the tree?

Pepsi: In Need of a Refresh?

“When industry market share numbers came out in March, showing Pepsi-Cola slipped to No. 3, analysts quickly accused PepsiCo—and Chairman and Chief Executive Indra Nooyi—of taking their eyes off the company’s biggest brand.” (WSJ article: http://on.wsj.com/iF1Jel)

Just a couple of years ago Ms. Nooyi was considered a visionary and the messiah who had come to transform Pepsi. Today, the same people are raking her over the coals for not delivering in “the numbers” in the short-term.

Granted that Ms. Nooyi has had some major missteps along the way with the disastrous re-branding of Tropicana and the Sun Chips LOUD bag fiasco but I think that is to be expected when one is trying to fundamentally change the DNA of a company and brand.

From the beginning, Indra Nooyi, made clear that she was embarking in an ambitious and risky plan to change the complexion of Pepsi Co. by making it a more responsible and health conscious global company. She never hid the fact that she was going to do this by re-orienting Pepsi’s product portfolio to be healthier and less “junk-filled.” This is the equivalent of a corn flakes brand entering a country like India where people ate hot and spicy meals for breakfast. This brand laid out a strategy that said they would not expect to break even for at least 10+ years because their first objective was to change generationally entrenched consumer habits.

The same applies for Ms. Nooyi’s strategy. It is based on a long-term vision and relies on changing consumer habits over the period of a generation, not over a quarter. By taking advantage of a global health trend that is only going to grow in the future she is among that rare breed of CEO’s actually doing their job by thinking about the company ten to twenty years down the road.

I truly believe that one of the major reasons US companies today fail to dominate like they once did in the global marketplace is because so many have become slaves to this quarterly earnings and profit mentality driven by Wall Street.

The reason companies like Kellogg’s and IBM have succeeded and stayed dominant for more than 100 years. It is because they still take the long view; which often means investing and/or taking losses in the short-term to enter a market or implement a new strategy, which pays huge dividends and sets the company up to dominate in the future.

There is no substitute for a CEO’s long-term vision and strategy for a company.