The Missing 33%: Has Anything Changed?

Provocateurs, doubting Thomases and optimists alike say to me, "Surely things have changed since your initial research and later TED Talk. The Missing 33% can't still be missing, right?"

As I’ve tracked published research in the years since, I regret to reply,

"No things haven't changed much. The Missing 33% is still very much missing!"

How Do I Know?

My discovery of The Missing 33%, was based on studies cited in a BusinessWeek cover story published in 2000. The studies supported the announcement on the cover that

AS LEADERS, WOMEN RULE                      

"New studies find that female managers outshine their male counterparts on almost every measure."

Cool!

But wait a minute. Rereading the cover I wondered, "If women outshine managers who are men, why are there so few of us at the top?

What's that almost all about?"

Diving into the studies listed in the article, I discovered what I dubbed "The Missing 33%" of the career success equation for women. In short The Missing 33% describes the findings that managers rate:

1. Women and men the same when it comes to Personal greatness,
2. Women as outperforming men on interpersonal and team skills (Engaging others), but
3. Men as outperforming women when it comes to business, strategic and financial acumen (Outcomes).

Those studies were done in the 1990s. Since then, in order to track any substantial progress, I analyze every published study that I find that compares women's and men's perceived leadership attributes (15 to date). These studies, as those from the BusinessWeek article, proclaim that women are better leaders than men.

Again, cool! Everyone gets all aflutter. Banners are hung. Trumpets are blown. Posts fly across social media. We women stand a little prouder.

But, I remain curious and skeptical. As a coach, I hope you do, too.

With each study, I note the attributes where men are rated as outperforming women or women rated as outperforming men. I then use my 3-part definition of leadership...

"Leadership is using the greatness in you to achieve and sustain extraordinary outcomes by engaging the greatness in others."

to label those attributes with a:

• P = using Personal greatness
• O = Outcomes (business, strategic and financial acumen)
• E = Engaging greatness in others

and then place them in a spreadsheet.

Revealing the Patterns

Excluding the original research, here's what the 15 studies tell us:

Or put another way (now that I've finally figured out Numbers on my Mac):

NOTE: The reported studies often do not give access to raw data, therefore excluding attributes where women and men were rated as equal.

Minor Changes, Major Disappointment

There have been three relatively minor changes since my research in 2000:

1. Whereas, in the first studies, women and men had roughly the same number of Personal Greatness attributes, in the recent studies women have substantially outpaced men. It could be that, unlike the earlier studies, more of these studies were attribute-based rather than competency-based.
2. Delegation no longer appears as Engagement skill where men are rated as outshining women. It could be that women and men in these latter studies were rated equal at delegation. Or because delegation doesn’t appear as a factor in any of the latter studies.
3. These same reasons might be why use of strategic relationships to advance the business has also disappeared from the Engagement column as an area where men are perceived as outperforming women.

There's one major, significant, noteworthy, and otherwise elephantine finding:

Yes, The Missing 33% is still missing as an area of perceived strength for women.

Are Women Really Better?

Which should cause us all to ask, how is it that headlines continue to proclaim that women are better leaders than men? There are 2 major reasons:

First, the vast majority of leadership assessments under-measure business, strategic and financial acumen. In one of the studies, where raw data wasavailable, only 1 of 16 competencies had anything to do with business, strategic or financial acumen. These are the very skills that matter most when candidates are evaluated for advancement toward senior/executive levels.

As a result, engagement skills (e.g. inclusiveness, encouraging positive team environment) and personal attributes (e.g. transparency, flexibility) are over-represented thus giving women an edge.

Second, by reporting on 360º results (combining ratings from direct reports, peers, colleagues, managers and others) instead of 180º results (only ratings from managers and others above) the important perspectives of those up the leadership chain are discounted. After all, it is the candidate's boss and others above her whose opinions about her business, strategic and financial acumen matter most.

Nope, Nothing's Changed

How much have things changed since 2000?

When it comes to The Missing 33%, not at all.

Since the original research was done 20+ years ago, a new generation has moved into senior leadership positions and things are the same.

So, now I'm downright annoyed. It's as if managers have learned nothing and organizations haven't changed "the way we do things around here."

Until leadership assessments equally measure business strategic and financial acumen in relation to engagement skills, and until managers perceive that women and men are rated as equal in those areas, women will continue to lag behind - to the detriment of organizational performance is evidenced by multiple studies that correlate increase diversity at the top with higher business performance.

This is why this Coaching Executive Women newsletter focuses on helping coaches work with women clients to address The Missing 33%.

What can executive coaches do?

1. Don't let women clients rest on or spend time perfecting their often good engagement skills and think they've nailed leadership.
2. Don't let women clients rest on their personal greatness and think it will make them promotable.
3. Carefully examine items on the assessments you use and that the organization gives you access to (e.g. 360º evals and performance reviews). Are there items asking for feedback about business, strategic and financial acumen? If so, in what proportion? If so, is your client scoring lower on those than on engagement skills? If not, develop a plan to collect qualitative input.
4. Check out actionable guidance for executive coaches in these articles:

• 8 Tips for Coaching Executive Women
• 5 Questions to Ask Managers of Your Women Clients
• She's Not Strategic!

To receive more actionable resources, please follow Susan Colantuono on LinkedIn and subscribe to her newsletter. And please help spread the word to colleagues. We all rise together!

‍