Women – too often don’t feel entitled to what they do deserve

Men – too often men feel entitled to what they don’t deserve

What’s behind this and why are so many women afraid to ask for what they want, need and deserve in the work place?

Neurochemistry

A big part of a women’s identity is tied to both her estrogen and oxytocin.  Her estrogen is what causes her to feel more feminine and her oxytocin is about what causes her to feel that connecting, nurturing and bonding are so important.

A big part of men’s identity is tied to both his testosterone and adrenaline.  His testosterone is what causes him to feel aggressive and his adrenaline is what causes him to feel powerful.

Both women and men are also frequently dopamine junkies where dopamine is what cause both of them to feel pleasure and even intense pleasure.

When women are coming from their estrogen/femininity and it succeeds in attracting men to bond with and cherish them, that releases a dopamine rush. When men are coming from their testosterone/male aggressiveness and it directs their adrenaline to fight (instead of flight) and they win something, that also releases a dopamine rush.

Pushing, asking and demanding are more in line with testosterone and adrenaline.

Giving and being given, caring and being cared about , loving and being loved are more in line with estrogen and oxcytocin.

Psychology

When a women asks or demands something at work (all bets are off at home) she is often perceived as a “b*tch” and at the very least as unfeminine, because those appears to be testosterone/adrenaline type behaviors.

Perhaps the greatest deterrent to asking for what they want, need and deserve is the fear that if they are perceived as the “b” word, they will be rejected by a man and then as the office buzz grows, by all the men in her office (as in, “She’s such a b*tch!”).  Rejection is the opposite of bonding and it is an affront to the oxytocin driven part of a woman’s identity.  That may explain why so many women don’t know how to behave in the office.  If they wait for the kindness and generosity of men, it usually doesn’t happen, because men tend to hoard power and feel that giving away anything diminishes it (that may explain why it is so difficult for men to say, “Thank you” or “Congratulations” and even more hard to say sincerely, “I’m sorry”).  On the other hand if women push for what they want they risk both: a) not receiving it which can make an already awkward situation worse and b) men pulling back and away from them which causes their oxytocin driven identity to take more of a hit.

What’s a Woman to Do – Focus on the Future

One of my favorite people is executive coach extraordinaire, Marshall Goldsmith.  He is the creator of “feed forward coaching” because he knows that it is much less likely to cause trouble to focus on a future that people have not yet messed up, than to get into a “pissing match” rife with ‘he said/she said’ escalation about something that has already happened.

Example 1: Regarding asking for help on a project.

If you can, at the beginning of any project where you might need help (doesn’t that mean all projects?) down the road, say to your boss or peer, “Going forward, in the event I need your assistance in either providing me with direct help or supporting me in accessing it from somewhere else, what is the best way to get that from you?”  Don’t feel guilty. Just be quiet. Remember, you’re not asking for it now.

Then listen to whatever they say and respond, “This is really important for me to get clear, because you know how awkward asking for help can be, so I just want to be certain I heard what you said.  You said the best way to approach you in the future is (then say exactly what they said).  Is that correct?” Wait for them to give a confirmatory, “Yes,” which according to influence guru, Robert Cialdini, will deepen their commitment to doing it in the future.

Example 2: Regarding asking for more pay and/or a promotion

You can certainly discuss it when your review comes up, but if that is likely to cause real awkwardness and end poorly here is an alternative. Say to your boss, “Are any of those (raise, bonus or promotion) negotiable?”

If they say, “No,” retain your composure (even if you’re boiling inside and whatever you do, don’t cry, because it makes men nuts), pause and reply, “Just so I’ll know for future reference and future reviews for more pay, bonuses and promotions, help me to understand what you evaluate in order to arrive at those assessments.”  Then again, be quiet. If he becomes uptight say, “I’m not trying to be difficult I’m just trying to understand your criteria for giving a raise, bonus and/or promotion so that I can be sure to meet them so that next time, if raises, bonuses and promotions are being given, that I will be in the best position to receive one.”

 Also:

• Calling All Women Executives: Part 1 – How to Win (Male) Friends and Influence Everyone
• Calling All Women Executives: Part 2 – Be a Little More Paranoid
• Calling All Women Executives: Part 3 – Turn Off Your B.S. Detectors
• Calling All Women Executives: Part 4 – How to De-Fang a Bully

What’s up with that?

In a sentence, the final moments are the place where neurochemistry, phylogeny and hyperfocus meet.

Neurochemistry

Adrenaline (= Power), Testosterone (= Aggression), Dopamine (= Pleasure)

Most extreme athletes are adrenaline junkies.  Why? Because an adrenaline rush when focused makes you feel not just powerful, but superhuman.  Two things trigger adrenaline, either “fight or flight.” What causes Bryant, Paul, Nowitzki and Anthony to be great is that their inherent testosterone/highly competitive/aggressive nature always causes them to choose “fight” and then focuses that adrenaline rush to be able to execute at an amazing level.   And after they have, the dopamine surge of pleasure that follows is close to ecstacy.

Adrenaline + testosterone (causing them to focus and fight vs. run and flee) together are the body’s natural Adderral which is what enables people with A.D.D. to become calm, centered and focused.  As you may know many of the best athletes have A.D.D. which is not truly about an attention deficit, but is really about not paying attention to things they don’t want to such as understanding and being prudent about finances and listening with undivided attention to their spouses and children.

Phylogeny

Think of your brain as being composed of three brains (referred to as Triune Brain). The oldest is your lower/reptilian/fight or flight brain which is 245 million years old; the next oldest is your middle/mammalian/emotional brain which is 65 million years old; and the relative newcomer is your upper/human/thinking brain which is about 200,000 years old.

The more impulsive, unfocused and scattered (a.k.a. scatterbrain) a person is, the more loosely configured are each of these three brains to each other and the more poorly they work together in unison.  In fact under stress they almost seem to function separately in such people which may explain how chaotic these people seem to act.  Think of such people as a rickety old pick up truck that feels like it will fall apart at any moment.

Hyperfocus

On the other hand, the more tightly these three brains are configured and aligned to each other aimed towards a singular purpose, the more focused, centered, determined and formidable these people are.  Think of such people as a Turbo Porsche that grabs and almost controls the road no matter how it bends and curves.

An analogy to better understand this is to think of how young military recruits enter basic training.  They may be filled with “piss and vinegar,” but their focus and minds are often all over the place.  However, then they are broken down and built back up into a force that can defeat and kill a fearsome enemy.  To do that, their thinking upper brains, feeling middle brains, and acting lower brains become almost arc welded to each other and the result is a warrior.

The problem for soldiers and many extreme athletes (are YOU listening O.J.?) is that without a life or death or high stakes situation, all that adrenaline/testosterone/dopamine has nowhere to go and nowhere to blow.  Without a war or a game with everything on the line, there isn’t sufficient at stake to trigger that adrenaline rush which them enrolls the testosterone to generate dopamine pleasure.

This may explain why so many extreme athletes and power players (“are you listening Tiger, Bill Clinton, John Edwards?”) do outrageous things outside of their sport or job.  Why? Because the thrill of an adrenaline rush is often exceeded by the agony of an adrenaline crash.  And when you do things that are dangerous, forbidden, risky and even foolish, that triggers an outpouring of adrenaline and another rush, which offsets the listless, irritable feelings these people have when coming off an adrenaline induced dopamine high.

But put them in overtime and it is a sight to behold (that triggers a dopamine surge in viewers which may explain why we keep watching replays of those moments).

Greg Gumbel once asked hockey’s greatest player, Wayne Gretzky, “What is it like to be in overtime of the deciding game of the Stanley Cup Playoffs, knowing that there are 10 seconds left and that the puck will be passed to you?”

Wayne flashed that huge, delighted (and no doubt dopamine filled) grin and responded: “I live the whole season for that moment.”

(Click twice s-l-o-w-l-y on image below to expand)

Being a successful Founder doesn’t necessarily a successful CEO make.  If after going through multiple vetted, seasoned, executives who come and go, the only thng all of them had in common beside their not working out is the founder.  It is very difficult for many founders to realize this because they are usually incredibly smart and things are incredibly clear at the moment in their heads.  But smart and clear at the moment in their heads although great qualities also do not a CEO make.  Jeff Immelt, CEO of GE, offered a great piece of advice when he said to do your job as if you’ll be doing it all your life.  Stay focused, become excellent at what you’re doing now, instead of continuing to jump to something that seems better for the moment.

Here are 10 signs that a Founder is not going to bring in a CEO to run the company while the Founder goes out to be its chief evangelist and strategic deal generator:

1. Poor Say/Do ratio: What they say about bringing in a CEO compared to what they do shows they’re not even close to taking action.
2. “Yes, but” every suggestion: They consistently point out why each possible candidate won’t work and insist the company doesn’t need one and that the problem lies with their team and not them.
3. Don’t initiate discussions about bringing in a CEO: Those who resist bringing in a CEO rarely initiate a discussion about stepping down, much less provide action steps with a time line.
4. People are afraid to bring up bringing in a CEO to them: These Founders are often domineering by nature, which intimidates key executives.  Why in the world would people risk annoying them?
5. Work is their life: They don’t have any hobbies or anything that produces the same adrenaline rush as the power they wield at work.  One Founder told me, “When you go from a somebody (a CEO who is in the game) to an anybody (just another Founder/Evangelist) it’s the same as being nobody. There is no middle ground between being in control or out of control and you know which one I’m sticking with.”
6. Work is their family: They are usually not capable of giving their undivided attention to their children and certainly not their spouse.  Work is their priority.
7. Won’t listen at work: They won’t listen to anyone who brings up need for a change at the top.  They throw the focus back onto the bottom line and challenge people about that and then often change topics and focus frequently.
8. Overcompensated: They are frequently overcompensated for the value they bring to the company.  These Founders often have a fear of losing their perks and their prestige if the company is turned over to others and if their compensation becomes open to scrutiny.
9. Increasingly more irritable: The more they realize that perhaps they aren’t entitled to what they’re paid, the more irritable they become.
10. They have fearful aggression: The more fearful Founders are that their real value will be exposed, the more aggressive they become in order to protect themselves.

Such a person, especially if they are a domineering figure, can put their company at risk in a couple of ways.

First, promising employees will be tempted to go elsewhere.  If that happens, the company will be left with the less than stellar performers.

Second, if the Founder has done a great job of making people believe that the company needs them, others will lose confidence in themselves and in that state of mind be more vulnerable to being “beaten up” by the founder. So what should promising employees, who could be the future of the company, do?

They should confront the Founder with the following:

1. “How committed are you to bringing in an executive team that could make this company a success?”
2. “Please offer a plan of action that takes action on finding a CEO and that assigns role and responsibilities to people already here and a timeline.”
3. “If you are truly committed to finding a CEO, do I have your permission to seek out resources within and outside the firm to find such a person?”

If you are a Founder, what can you to do to make letting go of control more tolerable?

There are some great organizations including YPO, WPO, Vistage, Chief Executives Guild and Renaissance Executive Forums that can provide you with a group of peers who will be committed to you, have your backs and be candid with you.

Also check out: Can Your Company Succeed Once the Founder Leaves?

High Maintenance = Easy to Upset, Difficult to Please

Low Maintenance = Difficult to Upset, Easy to Please

(and if you can’t stay on, you never get to the last two)

Being cast as a visionary is a drug and when it turns out you are mainly an opportunist or worse, a one trick pony, the paranoia about being exposed can make you murderous to your people (who are not to blame) and suspect to second or third round investors when they discover they’ve been had and you really don’t have the right stuff.

1. Reality Distortion Field* – Steve Jobs got away convincing himself and others of something that wasn’t true in the present later in his life because he delivered the products that backed him up.  By the way, it wasn’t that way before the ipod and itunes.
2. “Next great idea!” addiction – Will switch directions every month or more frequently when the “next great idea” doesn’t deliver, produce or sustain “Wow!” in customers or trust and confidence and more money from investors.
3. Delegate Poorly – They are much clearer in their heads than what they truly communicate and treat their people as stupid or lazy when in fact they have not been clear in their communication and people are afraid to push back.
4. Intimidate their people – They can’t and won’t take “No” for an answer which is usually caused by a “kick the dog” reaction when the investors they want respect and more importantly money from, begin to question their being a good investment or even credible.
5. Unmanageable and Incorrigible – After being told that their company needs professional management or a CEO so the founder can be the company’s chief evangelist and rainmaker, a series of people are brought in who can’t manage the unruly and erratic behavior by the founder.
6. “Your agenda is showing” – Often founders start a company out of love for its mission and what it could be and then get seduced by all the toys that money can buy and then need to sustain it akin to the “Goldman’s Handcuffs.” As a result their creating a product or service that is driven 80%+ by delighting and serving the customer or client becomes corrupted into ROI on everything.  True investors may be the driving force to get something back quickly for their shareholder, but the Founder doesn’t have to buy into that hook, line and sinker.
7. “Would rather be King than Rich” – There are good and bad to each of these.  It’s good to be King if you’re Steve Jobs and have your finger on your customer’s future in terms of what will delight them out of their lives of quiet desperation, be dependable compared to mediocre quality products, be something they can wax poetically and enthusiastically to others about instead of waning and complaining about something that sucks. It’s bad to be a King who is on purely an ego and power trip rather than a quality or any other trip that focuses on anyone else.  It’s also good to want to be rich by both maximizing the value and ROI of how you run your company instead of it seeming like the Keystone Cops without the fun.  It’s bad to be so focused on ROI that quality doesn’t even come second, it comes as doing the least costly thing that won’t tick off your customer or client so much that they leave.

* BTW, as Founder, you don’t have to be a “serial” visionary.  IDEO is an award-winning global design firm that takes a human-centered, design-based approach to helping organizations in the public and private sectors innovate and grow. They know that it’s not what you as the visionary see that’s important as going out and plumbing all that is already out there and then drilling down to distill what could be that would delight, satisfy and cause all your customers and clients to tell everyone they know after you build it. To read one of the best books on how to send out your best, brightest and most curious “first class noticers” (to quote Saul Bellow) to find the visions already in life and that are there for the asking, check out: The Ten Faces of Innovation by Tom Kelley.

Q: What is one thing men and women in business have in common?
A: They both distrust men

I was recently discussing with leadership guru and author of thirty one books on leadership and his recent book, Still Surprised: A Memoir of a Life in Leadership (Jossey-Bass),  Warren Bennis, my primary focus on coaching high potential senior management and executive women to more effectively, successfully and smoothly navigate male dominated organizations and companies.

I explained to Warren that after I meet with women and offer them tailor made prescriptive solutions that they can immediately use, they respond with, “How soon can we meet again?” and that after offering that and even a game changing “breakthrough” to a man, they will respond with, “That’s fascinating! I’ll get back to you about that” (which they usually don’t).  As it happens, women want coaching to be better at their non-technical skills especially in dealing with men; more often men need to get better at their non-technical skills, but don’t want it, often resent having to have those skills and prefer to retreat to their core competencies even though they don’t realize that are being commoditized and already being outsourced.

Warren mentioned in his role as a “first class noticer” (a la Saul Bellow) that women ought to be slightly more paranoid/cautious in business (like men).  I asked him to say more.  Warren explained: “Men are guarded with nearly everyone and are very cautious about showing vulnerability.  To men, ‘vulnerability’ means being exposed or in danger. Very few men view it as being open. Women are often too open and men too often have a knee jerk reaction to that and experience it as intrusive, when in reality it is just being direct and wanting to focus on getting the work at hand done, because they then have to rush home to take care of kids, aging parents and the house.”

We then discussed how women feel safer (at least in their non-work world) to express themselves verbally and often talk first and then because of that are better able to clarify their thoughts.  Men on the other hand will often think first and be more careful about what they say, because they have a primal belief that if the say the wrong thing to the wrong man, he will go back to his office and come back and shoot you.

Women don’t quite have that primitive fear of being killed if they emotionally express themselves.  Put down, yes, killed no.

A few years ago I experienced that when a man cut me off in traffic and my wife yelled at him and flipped him off (now you know who wears the pants in my family).  At that point I looked at my wife and said, “Oh, that’s great! You just angered this guy and he’s now going to start a fight that I have to finish.  And in this day of women’s equality, don’t be surprised if he takes out a gun and shoots us both. Thank you very much!”

There are many explanations for this lack of paranoia in women.  It could be related to more estrogen and oxytocin (the bonding hormone) in women, more testosterone in men or to the way women were raised to connect to people and men were raised to not trust anyone.

Another explanation may be a structure in the brain called the corpus callosum that is a fiber network that connects our right (emotional) cerebral hemisphere with our left (logical) cerebral hemisphere.  It is thicker in women than in men.

This means that during distress, men are coming from two separate brains – either they can become violently aggressive (right emotional brain) or coldly logical (left logical brain) — that have little power to influence each other.  This may help men adapt to war where getting emotional when a friend has just been exploded is not as important as getting information back to a command post.

On the other hand in women left and right brains are more often in contact.  This may explain a women’s sixth sense where they are able to know where their baby is and what they’re doing from hearing a sound in another room that a man could never know and also enables them to know when a man is lying to them.  It may also explain why fewer women start wars or engage in physical and other violence than men.

On another level, since men’s left and right brains are not as fluidly connected as in women, men are often trying to override and control their emotional reaction by trying to come from their logical side.  The fact that this it is sometimes quite difficult to do this, may explain the coldness of men who are in fact trying not to become angrier and then risk losing control, exploding and becoming violent towards someone they are supposed to protect.  Because of not trusting their own emotionality to not do something destructive, they project that fear onto women and think they will do the same when they become emotional.

Since women’s left and right brains are more in contact with each other (and each side can mitigate the effects of the other), they are better able to feel and express their upset verbally (whereas men will resort to a destructive action).

This may explain why when there is a conflict or an uncomfortable rift between a man and a woman, the man will not step into the gap unless what the women says makes sense and the woman will not step into it unless what the man says feels right.

The French might say, “Vive la difference,” but it might be more accurate to say, “La difference vive” and the differences will always be there.  The more men and women understand and get where each other are coming from and then don’t react to it, the greater both men’s and women’s chance for success and maybe a lot more collaboration and even a little peace between the sexes. And mutual enjoyment will not be far behind.