Chapter 2: Mobilize Backers: Negotiating for Critical Support

OVERVIEW

Intelligence pays off. The more you know about the business and political challenges of a role, the more confident you can be about making it work for you and the organization. Unfortunately, this optimism is not always universally shared. In any competitive environment, there remains abundant room for skepticism. Not everyone in an organization will be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt or suspend judgment until you have a chance to prove yourself.

And in that uneasy period before performance ”the proof ”kicks in, the scrutiny can be intense . In fact, 68 percent of the senior women we surveyed at a professional conference believed that their success was not presumed when they took on prominent roles. Their experience showed them that their leadership skills and abilities were likely to be more closely scrutinized than those of their male colleagues. Under the microscope, constantly tested and then retested, they placed a high premium on proving themselves . Only then could their hopes of success be realized.

What is remarkable about the results of this informal poll is that one-third of the women did not expect the scrutiny. Unprepared, they may not have recognized how important first impressions can be. Nor would they have been in a position to appreciate how their ability to perform could be undermined or their authority to lead questioned. In failing to anticipate the scrutiny ahead, they may have passed up opportunities to negotiate the breathing room they needed or the backing that would channel the testing in productive directions.

One of the women was candid in her appraisal: "After three months, I want people to say things are on the right track." Such endorsement cannot be taken for granted. You need help in making it a reality. And that help starts at the top. In the process of drilling deep, you engage key stakeholders to probe their commitment to the task at hand and their confidence in your ability to handle it. That commitment and that confidence need to be mobilized to influence others in the organization.

Leaders are constantly measured and constantly tested when they take on new assignments or expanded roles. They are expected to produce, but to deliver results they have to be in a position to make that performance possible. This situation creates something of a paradox for new leaders . In order to lead, they first have to be perceived to have the authority to lead. ^[1]

Myriad business and political factors come into play in building confidence in an appointment ”whether the newcomer is male or female . Shortly after Jeffrey Immelt took the reins at GE, for example, he set about rebalancing the conglomerate's portfolio of businesses. ^[2] In the process, he radically transformed Bob Wright's role as president and CEO of the affiliated operations at NBC. With the acquisition of Vivendi International, he positioned what had been essentially a broadcast network as a future global media powerhouse, vertically integrated with production capacity and distribution channels. What is interesting is the care with which Immelt simultaneously positioned Wright. "He has to make his numbers ," Immelt stressed in a televised interview. ^[3] Wright, however, would be making his numbers in a business tied securely to the parent company's strategic direction and one characterized by expanding markets and high profit margins. And, Immelt made clear, he would enjoy his chairman's full confidence.

Wright, of course, was a known quantity at GE. Before his move to NBC, he had headed GE's hugely successful financial services business. It was widely assumed that that track record ”and the abilities it represented ”were transferable to another business. Consensus like this is more the exception than the rule. As we discussed in the introduction, with today's rapidly changing environments, new assignments are rarely a perfect fit. New roles clearly build on past accomplishments. But they also create challenges for the future. As others assess an appointment, they can focus on achievements ”the prevailing disposition for Wright ” or they can concentrate on the gaps and what is missing. You may have some experiences that are exactly on target. Maybe you have managed several large technology projects and heading up the unit seems a logical next step. Sure, you delivered discrete projects on budget and on schedule. But others in the organization may question whether you have the technical expertise or the financial background necessary to lead the enterprise.

Because the fit between person and role is seldom perfect, the take on that fit will always be subject to conflicting evaluations. When Sanford Weill tapped Sallie Krawcheck to overhaul Citigroup's beleaguered Smith Barney unit, doubts surfaced quickly. Krawcheck, Institutional Investor's top-rated analyst in the brokerage sector, had run Sanford Bernstein, a boutique firm, for little over a year. Few thought that this background qualified her to take on the "massive management job" at Smith Barney. "[Weill] put someone in the job who was a great analyst but knows nothing about running this business." ^[4] Naysayers like these can sway the jury when the negative impressions they generate compromise the new leader's ability to claim authority in the role. Without that authority, leading others becomes almost impossible . ^[5]

All leaders are subject to scrutiny, but as we discussed in the Introduction, the testing that women experience can be especially focused and intense. It is here that backing from key leaders is crucial. Whether key backers are countering faulty rationales against an appointment or just putting their credibility behind their choice, they are an invaluable resource. But such backing is never a given; it must be negotiated, and certain conditions can make those negotiations more or less of a challenge. When relationships go back a long time, a new leader can usually count on the backing of senior people. The top executive in a large manufacturing company summed up the situation up well:

When I put folks in a leadership position, I don't let them fail. I know them; I've mentored them and given them opportunities to prove themselves over the years .

This executive's confidence in his appointments grew out of the rapport he had established with up-and-coming managers. Because his relationships with male managers tended to be on a stronger footing than those he maintained with the company's female managers, he had less hesitation in putting men in leadership positions and backing those decisions. For the women, the situation was more complicated. He did not know them so well ”their relationships were more recent and more tentative. Before making those appointments, he needed additional convincing; in his mind, there was still some testing to be done. This executive had not even a scintilla of bias against women. In fact, he actively championed their participation at the highest ranks in the company. But the women could not automatically count on his support; they had work to do to negotiate for his backing.

^[1] Ronald A. Heifetz, Leadership Without Easy Answers .

^[2] Charlie Rose, Interviews. The Charlie Rose Show , September 3, 2002, and September 9, 2003.

^[3] Rose, Interview. The Charlie Rose Show , September 9, 2003.

^[4] David Rynecki, "Can Sallie Save Citi," and Daniel Kadlec, "2002 Global Influentials: Sallie Krawcheck, CEO of Citigroup's New Smith Barney Unit."

^[5] In Leadership on the Line , Martin Linsky and Ronald A. Heifetz address the perilous journey of leading through change. One of the perils is that it is impossible to exercise leadership without authority; people need to heed you.