Dehumanization narratives and campaigns are on the rise. We need to act – publicly and politically. The current focus on banning TikTok is insufficient.
The promise of power through toxic masculinity
Dehumanization is happening now, everywhere
Over the past few days, dehumanization campaigns have suddenly felt very personal and imminent. Berlin (where I live) this week issued a warning of a viral “rape day” call on TikTok. The viral call targeting boys and men claimed that rape of women and girls on this specific day would not be illegal nor prosecuted (I have four children, three of whom are girls). My kids have also flagged to me a campaign targeting boys and men to punch random women in the face on the streets.
Dehumanization – which most people associate with colonialism, racism, or fascism – means that certain people or population groups are not deemed to have equal human rights – including the right to safety and protection. Many people still think and act as if dehumanization is a problem of the 20th century and the past, instead of being a current reality and a threat to billions of people.
In the viral TikTok calls noted above, women and girls have been objectified (or dehumanized) as legitimate and legal targets for sexual and physical violence. But these viral calls are not happening in isolation, and they are not just spreading on or caused by TikTok.
In the US, the far right has for several years eroded and rolled back women’s rights (and their bodily autonomy around abortion and sexual reproductive rights). In too many countries to count, LGBTQI+ and in particular trans rights are (again) being legislated as crimes that carry heavy punishments (or even the death penalty). Many traditional centrist and centre-right parties in Europe now legislate or publicly propagate mass deportations of refugees or migrants seeking asylum. More than 33,000 Palestinian civilian casualties (70 percent of whom are minors and women) and an apparent imminent invasion of Rafah in Gaza have been justified by parts of Israel’s government using the rhetoric of “animals”.
Instead of universal human rights, objectifying people and entire population groups as “not equally human” is becoming the (tolerated) norm. Dehumanization is happening now, and it is happening everywhere.
Political inaction and personal silence
Most attention and recent political responses have focused on social media platforms (in particular TikTok) that through their algorithms promote threat and hate campaigns to spread (i.e. go viral). National security and geo-political arguments (linked to Chinese ownership) have so far dominated, and have more recently been complemented with mental health arguments (see this week’s Economist extensive profiling of social media use in a special on GenZ).
Where are the political leaders who speak out against toxic masculinity (against women and girls and diverse genders)?
Where are the political leaders who call out racism and fascism?
Where are the political leaders who take a stance on war crimes and crimes against civilians and humanity?
Where are the leaders who stand up for universal human rights?
Depressingly, we seem to know the answer. These leaders – or I’d rather call this a “void of leadership” – are worried about losing potential right-wing voters, or calculating how to win a few over through populist rhetoric and policies. They have left behind all values because the promise of power through tampering with toxic masculinity (and anti-refugee, anti-LGTBQI+, etc., attention) is too enticing.
What has depressed me equally over the past months has been the silence of most non-political leadership. International organizations, private sector firms, foundations, and even most international NGOs have been…mostly silent. (But hold your breath, in a few months we’ll finally see a few handshake photos and collaboration announcements and partnerships with social media firms to tackle “misinformation”.)
This silence, or even complicit support, of dehumanizing narratives and policies, is what in my opinion allows “rape days” to go viral – and more importantly – become a real threat. If all you see are political and institutional leaders who don’t raise an eyebrow when extreme right-wing rhetoric is used – or perhaps they even use some themselves – why not expect that treating “others” in an inhumane way may seem to be ok?
Use your voice
We can no longer afford to hope that the problem of the far-right will disappear. We have two options: to remain silent, complacent, and complicit – or to speak out and act against what threatens the rights and lives of billions of people.
Speak up for universal human rights, wherever you are.
Call your leadership to account, wherever you work or live.
Use your vote.
Don’t hope it all just goes away. It will be too late.
Banning or not banning TikTok won’t solve the mess we are in.
I have worked with “leaders” for twenty years. Here is what I have learned about leadership.
Not the leader I want
A leader has power (?)
I have always been fascinated by power. Who decides what gets prioritized and funded? The powerful. Who sets rules and redefines rights and responsibilities? Those in power. Who can sustain wars, end famines, and ensure that people do not needlessly die during a pandemic? Powerful people.
Throughout my career, I have had the privilege to see power in action. In my very first job in 2001, I engaged with former German Chancellor from the Cold War era, Helmut Schmidt. I have since worked with former Heads of State, several World Bank Presidents, and CEOs of multi-billion dollar foundations and international NGOs. I have seen from the inside and close-up how policy and funding decisions are made, or blocked.
When we think of leadership, we often think of the head of a country or organization. If you’ve seen the inner workings of governments and organizations, you’ll also know that there are what are called “veto players” (actors who have the ability to decline a choice being made). CEOs have board members and key investors. Heads of State have coalition partners, and in most countries, actors like military leadership or funders and lobbyists. It’s important to understand who really holds the reigns of power.
“Leaders”?
I have during my career learned that some leaders are duds (something that fails to work properly, taking up unnecessary space or leaving a void). Other leaders are marionettes (their actions are fully controlled by others). Many leaders I have seen try to lead through control – often toxic control – and thereby become duds, because very few people in practice follow. Or they act like dictators, most people fearing to dissent.
Five years ago, I pulled the emergency breaks in my work. I didn’t believe in what my organization’s leadership claimed it was doing, and felt (as a wonderful colleague of mine articulated years later) that “I was slowly dying inside from Monday to Friday”.
I began to question the leadership I kept seeing, which in my view was being wielded through arrogance, threats, and a motivation to control. It felt intellectually void, and most importantly, morally wrong. I felt that if I continued to work for such leaders, I would become someone I feared to be. Worse, I feared I was sustaining a system that was disrespectful, unfair, and toxic.
I began to look for a different type of leadership and literally asked colleagues and friends to provide me with the names of the people who inspired them. I began to look at colleagues and people around me with different eyes. Just because a person didn’t hold power – “controlling a group, country, or situation” (the definition of leadership above from the Cambridge Dictionary) – it didn’t mean they didn’t inspire me to learn and follow.
What is leadership?
Over the past five years, I have redefined what I believe leadership is. It’s not a title, control over budgets, or even the ability to make decisions that affect others. That’s pure, cold, power.
Leaders in the sector I currently work in (global health) are people like Loyce Pace (now holding power as Assistant Secretary in the Office of Global Affairs for the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services), who when I first met her was a shining star in compassionate and inclusive engagement, elevating diverse and marginalized voices and their issues that were at the time fully neglected – even ridiculed – in our sector. A leader who has inspired me to follow and learn since I have met her is someone like Roopa Dhatt (founder of Women in Global Health), who is the only person I have ever seen inspire an authentic, global movement that is based on mutual respect and support, not the incentive of making someone’s ego and legacy shine. A leader is a person like Helen Clark, former Prime Minister of New Zealand and still hugely powerful and influential, who in my experience is one of the least arrogant yet most determined and value-based people I have met.
Leaders are people like Madhu Pai (recently made Inaugural Chair of the Department of Global & Public Health at McGill), who fearlessly called out inequities of our system during the pandemic, and who champions so many important causes that make people with vested interests uncomfortable. People like Seye Abimbola, who as BMJ Global Health’s editor-of-chief placed values above interests, and quoting Madhu Pai from a talk both held yesterday at McGill “created the only safe space in global health”. Or Ed Yong, one of the best journalists I have ever read, who left a prestigious job at The Atlantic, and inspires me every day with his posts on Bluesky on how you can take a different path and still move mountains in the world. Leadership for me is also the courage to use your voice publicly, and calling out people in a non-PC way as “dickheads” when others just flock towards the dollars (Kristof Decoster, Editor of the International Health Policies network newsletter, and who has more than anyone inspired and encouraged me to speak out and use my own voice).
All of the people listed here – and there are many more – share one trait: they explicitly call out and shine the light on other people, and people whose work and efforts they are building on, and who inspire them. These leaders may have egos too, but these egos are not front and center and in your face all the time.
Not controlling leadership, but inclusive leadership
Most people who wield power may be defined as “leaders”, but I am adding quotation marks for a reason. They do not in my experience really inspire, nor do they have authentic followership. Many people are blinded by their perceived power, or more often their dollars. If their leadership style is controlling or even toxic, they are closer to dictatorial and continue to wield power through threats and fear.
Even in our global health sector, we still have such “leadership” in some organizations and countries.
It’s high time to question and also push back against such leadership. More than ever – both in global health and also more broadly in the world – we need visionary, inclusive leaders who inspire and show that new ways of doing things are possible. Some people may call this “feminist leadership”, others compassionate or inclusive leadership. I’d simply call it leadership in its truest form.
Twenty years into my career, I know such leadership when I see it.
I am fascinated by power and have worked with the highest levels of leadership throughout my career. In this blog, I ask whether a leader has to have followers?
A Leader: 5 million followers, 50K followers, 1 follower…?
I was recently notified I’d been selected as one of Germany’s top 100 women entrepreneurs. I had a good laugh (I’m not an entrepreneur, nor do I consider myself Top 100 of most things) until I saw that I would be listed publicly if I paid a five-figure sum. A few weeks before, I had been invited to two “predator” health conferences as a keynote speaker, where speakers were requested to pay a nominal sum, and participants were expected to pay thousands in participation fees.
There’s an entire predatory (or scam) industry around people’s hopes to be perceived as a leader. Paying to be listed in a Top 30 Under 30s, buying thousands of social media followers, and paying five-figure sums to have your article published in a journal, just to name a few.
I’ve never paid for a leadership title or followers this way, but these experiences have made me wonder what real leadership is. Are you a leader because 5 million people follow your work, path, or feed? Is 50K sufficient? What if it’s only one, or perhaps none…?
A Leader: A Visionary
One definition of a leader is someone who inspires followers. These are people who can mobilize and build movements for change. Think Gandhi, Mandela, or Malala.
Mobilizing leadership can also be dangerous. Think Hitler. Or any current authoritarian or populist leader or candidate – there are unfortunately many.
Some leaders are ahead of their times. A few become inspiring forces of change long after their deaths. Think of the figureheads of most religious movements.
These different types of visionary leaders inspire for different reasons. Someone like Mandela inspired hope for freedom and change. Trump inspires collective hate and a combination of power and destruction. Religious leaders – and perhaps even many artists and influencers – inspire a sense of belonging to a cause and community.
A Leader: An Enabler
I have in my career and life been inspired by many (hopefully positive) visionary leaders. I’ve read the biographies, watched the movies, followed and rooted for various careers and elections, and tried my part to support visions of progress and change. Yet looking at my own work experience and studies over the past 25 years, I’ve been most inspired by leaders who have been enablers.
Instead of seeking people to follow their path, enabling leaders try to support and elevate the people they interact with. Think of that special teacher or university professor who helped you discover your true passion and strength. Or the manager who gave full credit for your work in a board meeting.
When I look at my colleagues who have in the past decade held various leadership positions (CEOs, Ministers, various chair roles), the ones with the strongest followership have not been those who have tried to gain or strengthen their power through threats or coercion (or carrots of buying favors), but those who have been inclusive, enabling, and who have strengthened entire teams and communities.
A Leader: A Tolerated Title
In many large bureaucracies that I have worked in (at international and national level), I have learned that some leaders are only so by title. I’d call them tolerated leaders, because people still (more or less) partner with them (externally) or follow their orders (internally), but most in private admit to just sitting the leader out. I’ve found this tenacity and immense patience baffling, if not terrifying. It has felt like zombie-like complacency and lack of any individual agency.
Where a leader is merely tolerated, the leader (most often himself, but at times also herself) may not be aware that they only command fake, symbolic followership. Looking at many conflated egos among leaders, they may not even care if their followers are real or not. Maybe they’re the same type who would simply buy a million followers on social media, or pay to be published in a journal. As long as they can make-believe they are leaders, and have some proxy title and status symbols to go with it, this seems to be sufficient for them.
My Hope: Stay real
Power works like a drug. People in leadership want more of it and find it immensely difficult to let go. At some point, many leaders stop caring whether they still lead with vision, or are enabling. Many don’t even care if their followers are only going through the motions and tolerating them, or may just be fake followers.
The same holds true in our social media age. Social media channels are known to be designed addictively, triggering dopamine (short-term happiness hormones) in our brains every time we see a new follower or like. To feel like a leader, you want more of this drug, at all costs.
As with all of my blogs, I’m not writing anything new. I just hope we all reflect more on what we are really doing, and why. This is my own reflection, and hope – also for myself – to stay real. We can’t in these current times afford to work for fake or poor leaders – or become one ourselves.
Ahead of International Women’s Day on 8 March, the rallying cry to have more women in leadership positions is loud and clear. But very few women make it into leadership – and some prominent women leaders have recently decided to quit, citing unbearable and inhumane working conditions. Are our rallying calls to strive for higher, more, tougher resulting in what we want? I believe we’re missing a key piece that is important to so many women I know, and also to me personally: vulnerability.
Making up half of the global population, women are entitled to half the sky (and at least half of CEO and board roles, half of parliamentarian seats, and should make up half of those posing for head of state and government photos). I’ve advocated for this for decades because I believe in equality and diversity.
Girls and young women are in most countries trained to strive for ever higher and more. Women CEOs and heads of state are celebrated as role models. And as the path to success – often defined as linear promotions, with more staff, budgets, and power – has many hurdles, and there are many sharp elbows along the way, women are trained to toughen up.
Teflon suits, poker faces, power poses
In one of my first managerial jobs, I experienced some sharp elbows and backstabbing by people I perhaps naively trusted. It hurt, and also made me question what was going on in the workforce. How were staff and managers incentivized to behave, compete, or collaborate? What type of behavior was rewarded, perhaps openly tolerated?
I didn’t feel well in this situation and sought advice from our experienced HR director. She advised me to imagine dressing in a “teflon suit” each morning, to feel like I was actively protecting myself. Instead of feeling stronger, I felt disillusioned. (My husband early on in his career in a coaching session was advised to practice power poses on video. He declined.)
My generation of women (and men too) has been trained this way: toughen up, don’t ever let your guard down, lower the tone of your natural voice to have more authority, and lean in (like successful men do).
Fix the system, not the women
Thankfully, many younger advocates have moved on from trying to “fix women” this way. They have instead focused on fixing systems that keep women disempowered, and unable to take on leadership roles, e.g. due to pay gaps, social norms, lack of child and elderly care support systems, or because of how decisions on leadership positions are made (by male boards, selecting male CEOs).
As a political scientist and economist, I’ve for many years supported this advocacy. Systems and norms really matter as gender equality in e.g. Nordic countries show. However, systems are not the panacea either, as women in Nordic countries still continue to lag behind men in pay, management, and company ownership, and are behind the United States – a country with weak social support systems – in terms of female workforce participation rates.
Another approach to fix systems is to address promotion systems within companies and organisations. There are surprisingly many women in important roles, but most women get stuck in middle-management roles, because they tend to be promoted based on merit as staff, and are not trained in strategic competencies. The solution has been to provide leadership coaching to women. Has it worked? Look back to the numbers of women in leadership.
What’s going wrong? What’s going on?
Something is not adding up. Men are defending their turf, and boys’ clubs are ensuring women are left out. Women have not been trained or coached or toughened up enough. Our tax, social, and payment systems have not been fixed yet. Or, as most of us suspect, simply all of the above.
Based on my personal experience (at the age of 43, and having worked for 20 years), and having observed so many women around me, something else is going on. Many of us feel vulnerable when things don’t feel like they are right (for our health, for our wellbeing, for our families, for other people). We’re seeking guidance from HR managers, mentors, coaches (and an increasing number from therapists).
And many of us, myself included, are refusing to “toughen up”. We see our vulnerability as a strength, as what makes us authentic, as our moral compass, and as an essential part of our identity. Our vulnerability is what cries out in alarm when all we do is dress in teflon suits, and try to get through sharp elbows day in and out, or learn that we have to elbow ourselves to succeed.
Like myself, so many women around are asking what the point is, when leadership seems to lead to many more endless battles (with other leaders, with boards, with investors), and the results of your work benefit a political and economic system where a few people continue to get richer, and billions are left worse off. Very few women I know are interested in strutting around in tailored suits, flaunting their staff numbers and budgets (although I confess, I’ve in my recent career seen a few of those too.) Very few women I know take their own physical and mental health lightly, not to mention that of their families, or staff around them.
Celebrate vulnerability
On this International Women’s Day, I’m celebrating the vulnerability of women around me. Many have started dropping out of the rat race for leadership positions, as I myself decided as well a few years ago, in a situation where all of my alarm bells were screaming “get out”. Many have decided not to “stick it out”, hoping something will change, perhaps wondering whether we ourselves have to change.
I will continue to advocate for gender parity, across all levels and in leadership. I still believe women leaders as role models are important, and gender diversity in leadership is essential. One day, I hope I can still have a position that lets me do what I hope I can with my training and skills, and vision for change. But not at all costs.
I have over the past years written this blog, hoping that my transition journey from a linear career model can inspire others to take alternative paths too. Many people have gotten in touch to thank me for showing my vulnerability publicly. I didn’t start this journey with this intention, but if this is what helps others, it feels like a worthwhile path.
Leaders often say things in public that do not reflect reality. This is a real problem when they stop caring and do this knowingly.
I Photo: ITV
I once had a boss who pulled me aside during one of our work trips. “We have a problem,” she said to me, “our programs are not working. They are not doing what we are saying.”
Most of the briefings and talking points we had received to do our public communication were wishful thinking for the future. They had in a complex editing process (with very many cooks in the kitchen/organisation) been stretched in many directions.
A simple fix would have been to change our talking points and communication. I (very naively) suggested this. I was immediately vetoed, as this wouldn’t work for fundraising. And this was not the image and legacy my boss wanted to have and leave: heading programs working on the margins, not the silver bullet transformation that changes the world.
Another more complex solution would have been to reform our programs. But our claims were so extraordinarily ambitious.
So we all lived with this knowledge (some of us for a shorter time, some longer): we were not doing what we were saying.
What leaders communicate, and why
The above anecdote will resonate with many people, working in government, private sector, multilateral organisations, and NGOs.
In government and politics, it’s common to criticise “lying politicians” who stretch truths (especially before elections) to gain or stay in power.
In the private sector, it’s known that there is always some fine print (often in hidden annexes and contracts) that fully contradicts grand promises.
In many multilaterals and NGOs, fundraising often drives public communication, not the reality of programs.
There are of course leaders who are simply ignorant of the fact that what has been drafted for them isn’t true. Middle managers and staff who are fearful to speak out keep toeing the line. Some who try may be reprimanded that they do not see “the full picture”, and it may indeed be the case that their specific part needs some edits, but that’s because of their own poor performance.
Other leaders knowingly stretch the truth (or leave out critically important information), because their boards expect them to do this. Leaders’ KPIs (and triggers whether they get to keep their leadership positions) are often based on growth, profits, and visibility – not on creating change. The latter is a problem left to programming and implementation.
Some leaders may grapple with this tension personally, but put up a stoic face to justify their claims in public. A grave problem arises when leaders stop caring. As long as the limelight is there, their legacy is a step to another leadership position, or keeps them in power, all means are justified for these ends.
Reality – whose reality?
Some leaders suffer from a reality disconnect. They work in large organisations and hierarchies, and reality is buffered through so many middle managers. They may be receiving fully contradictory or incomplete information. And you just need one weak link, just as in the game “telephone”, where one wrong or knowingly distorted whisper results in wrong messaging.
Some leaders also prefer spending their time and energy engaging with other leaders. They spend so much time planning what they would like to say compared to others that they don’t have time or capacity to listen or digest what their organisations are actually doing or can do.
Other leaders believe that what they say will become reality. It’s just the reality in the future, which others much figure out how to implement.
And finally, information on “reality” may simply not be available to leaders or entire organisations. Data may not be available, or may only become evident later, or may not be accessible or of sufficiently reliable quality. Without data (quantitative or qualitative), leaders and entire organisations may be (for some conveniently) flying blind.
Values and integrity
Ultimately, leadership communication comes down to values and integrity.
Does a leader know what they are trying to change, and are they honest about where things stand in reality right now?
When something does not work, is a leader willing to take the ultimate responsibility (and be willing to step down)?
Are leaders willing to be transparent about all information? Or do they cut and try to hide what is less shiny in the fine print. Do they correct media which distorts or gets information wrong?
And are leaders and organisations open to honest communication from staff and middle managers, including whistleblowing where needed?
The case of G7 and Covid19 vaccines
Right now, G7 leaders are meeting in the UK. We’re seeing a live example of rhetoric not matching reality.
UK’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson is issuing statement after statement about “landmark global leadership” of the UK, while simultaneously pushing the largest ODA cuts in recent UK history.
And nearly all G7 members are making grand pledges to donate funds (and some, vaccine doses) to the global multilateral vaccine mechanism for Covid19, Covax. Most adding qualifier clauses (“when domestic situations permit”), or dropping timelines (perhaps one day, in 2040?). Even when timelines are mentioned, the “domestic situation” qualifier clause is included (such as the recent US pledge of 500 million doses to Covax).
In these cases, G7 leaders are very knowingly trying to mislead citizens, media, and also multilateral and civil society organisations.
Sometimes, neither side cares. Applause for donors, success stories for multilateral fundraising? Tick.
This is a prime example of a moral failure. It will cost lives. Is that really the price of limelight, some initial media and civil society applause, and power?
If the answer is yes, is this the leadership you want?
This blog is about my personal experiences juggling four pregnancies and being in the job market, including while applying for and changing jobs. I also share my experiences from over ten years in recruiting staff, some of who were pregnant.
I once had a boss who walked into the office kitchen, declaring “Seriously, if anyone else announces they are pregnant, I’m going to quit.” To a group of young women.
I wished she would quit. What if one of those young women were early in their pregnancy, terrified she’d now lose her job or a promotion? What if one of them had just planned to get pregnant, and now put off that pregnancy for years – forever?
Another boss of mine once vetoed a recruitment of a dream candidate for my team. The candidate had after interviewing informed us she was pregnant, and my boss had fired back that the candidate had misled us, and this was unlikely to work.
The dream candidate dropped out and joined another team. I also left shortly thereafter.
Should I tell?
The above experiences are depressing, even more depressing because they are so common, and utterly depressing because both of these bosses were women – one who herself had children.
There is still a huge amount of discrimination against pregnant women, and women in childbearing age.
Some countries for this reason don’t legally allow for explicit questions about family planning in an interview process.
I myself have kept silent about having children for several years because of such discrimination. Because I really wanted that job – and had children, or wanted to get pregnant (again).
But as the above cases show as well, did I really want a job with a boss who didn’t treat staff like human beings? Who potentially drove people to not have children, terminate pregnancies, or just give up on trying to stay in the job market?
No, I didn’t want such jobs. I didn’t want to work under such leadership. And I didn’t want to support such toxic culture that devalued the private lives of human beings.
So I started to tell. I started to share publicly that I have children. Two, three, eventually four.
I once interviewed for a job, and was accepted. Two days later, I found out I was pregnant. I told my boss immediately. He was fully supportive. I was promoted during my pregnancy. We figured out my maternity leave. I returned and was again promoted.
Another boss of mine, after I told him I was pregnant, started bringing cake to our weekly meetings, to make sure I was getting enough calories. He brought cookies and presents to my home after I gave birth. We worked on a large research grant together, which was accepted.
Should I quit?
When I became pregnant with my first child, I was in the middle of a second Masters degree. My supervisor at the time told me to quit the high-intensity program, in her view I wouldn’t be able to cope with a baby.
Another professor, who later became the University President, supported me, and after switching supervisors I graduated second in my class, with a small baby.
My third child was born right after I finished a two-year position, which was to be renewed once I was ready to return. Two weeks after giving birth, I was informed my maternity cover would replace me, and I was left with a baby, but no job to return to.
I applied for other jobs. I rejoined the job market.
I know of so many people who because of similar experiences have put off having children for years, and are now having trouble getting pregnant.
I know of even more women who had good jobs, and who dropped down ladders with each pregnancy and baby, some dropping out of the job market fully.
I have since added all of the above to my list of “never, ever, treat people that way when you have the power to influence a decision or decide.”
Immediate decisions, immediate support
I once recruited for a full-time position, and found a dream candidate. At the end of the interview, she announced she had just given birth, and asked whether she could start a few months later, part-time.
I immediately agreed I’d try to support this, as did my own boss. She has been one of the best staff members I ever recruited.
I tried to give back what my own boss had given me: immediate support. Not an “oh, dear, well let’s see how we can figure something out.” Not an “erm, I’ll need to think about that.” But a “congratulations – and I’ll do everything I can to make this work.”
I once had another boss, who proactively tried to support maternity and paternity leaves, and smooth transitions back to work. She offered options to start working on projects again from home, once the parent was ready, and to return with 5-10% work time, and then ramp up to part-time and full-time once the parent was ready.
I asked her about this. Her response was that the parents who have seen such support, are her happiest employees – and most productive. They overcompensate.
Human beings, not just staff
In over a decade of supervising staff, I’ve dealt with pregnancies that just weren’t happening, and rounds of fertility treatments and missed meetings and hours at the office. I’ve dealt with miscarriages, and longer stays at the hospital. I’ve dealt with child sick days and months of maternity leave. I’ve dealt with CVs with large gaps that could stem from childcare.
I’ve recruited, managed, and supported human beings – not just staff.
Because I have have been a human being as well, as staff, as a manager, as a recruiter.
Everyone has non-work needs
As a manager, I always made a conscious point of saying (and trying to act) that every person has non-work needs. Some just need time to travel and wind down, others need to be active in their community or politically. Some need to skydive. Some have a baby to breastfeed at home. Others a sick child or older parent.
There’s still so much to do in this area, and if we don’t, the consequences are dire. The pay gap between women and men skyrockets with each additional child. Women with children are rarely in the highest leadership positions. Pension poverty is a reality for the majority of women. And too many people have delayed or fully sacrificed their hopes for a family in order to progress in their careers.
There are too many anecdotes and stories like the above, where unacceptable things have been said or done.
There are thankfully also good people and managers out there. People who have through their support and kindness made my own career possible – while allowing me to have a family.
Feel free to share your own story. This is another taboo are I’d like to try to help break. This is an insight into my story.
In this blog, I suggest we start digging deeper to question whether leadership (and our development sector more broadly) are walking the talk on issues such as gender parity or compassion in leadership.
Integrity and change at stake
A few years into my career, I realised that I was thriving or miserable in my work places based on one significant (albeit not sole) factor: whether I had a good boss.
I define “good” as a person who has a clear goal, knows how to motivate and rally staff, and treats staff as human beings with needs, also outside of the workplace (i.e. compassion).
I also realised that not only my direct line manager (e.g. middle management) played a significant role, but also top leadership of the organisation.
A line manager can try but is always constrained in defining a vision or goals (an impossible task if top leadership is not clear, or constantly pivoting). They are also limited in how much they can buffer e.g. if top leadership cultivates or tolerates a toxic or brutally competitive work culture. And they are usually risk averse to defying work place policies set by top leadership, such as flexibility on working hours or location.
I started treating interviews for jobs as a two-way decision. From my perspective, would I have room to deliver, grow, and stay a balanced person? It took some trial-and-error to realise that both my line manager and top leadership were relevant, and even if my line manager (usually the person in the interview) promised the world to suit my needs, I’d end up miserable if top leadership made it near impossible for them to deliver on their promises.
Talk vs walk
The problem is that, in an interview situation, neither side provides complete information. Every boss will try to appear clear, flexible and compassionate, although some (perhaps helpfully) don’t even try, and others set alarm bells ringing with what they say, how they react, or how they behave.
But all in all, most people want to appear competent and nice, especially if they are interested in recruiting a candidate.
I’ve therefore found myself in an interview where a line manager and organisational leader have both been clear with their vision, motivating, and compassionate. And proven to be so in practice too.
And I’ve found myself in an interview where the same appeared to be the case in the interview, and in practice everything was – I can’t put it any other way – horrible and painful chaos. The talk was the absolute opposite of the walk.
I’ve drawn some further lessons from these experiences, which I’ll summarise later below.
The example of gender parity
Another good example of talk vs walk is gender parity. I can’t think of many development organisations or leaders that are not flying the flag of gender parity, also for their internal structures.
But if you look at how many top women leaders there are heading international development organisations, the situation looks rather dire. For example, in 2021, out of 201 global health organisations, 70% are led by men, and 61% have male-dominated governing bodies, and 66% of new leadership and governing positions have gone to men. And in social impact organisations, a man is still three times as likely to rise to a leadership position than a woman.
The rhetoric of “I support gender parity in leadership”, voiced by (primarily male) leaders – some of who have held their positions for several terms – therefore rings quite hollow.
Integrity at stake
Some people may argue that it’s a positive development that leadership is even speaking about, or committing to compassion or gender parity. The hope is that leadership will compete to make increasingly bold commitments, and accountability – and somewhere along the line progress – will follow.
But from a (male) leader’s point of view, there’s little incentive to change things down the line. After this leadership position, unless they are planning on retiring, that same male leader will want another leadership position. We can turn blue holding our breath before a male leader steps back from his own leadership position to walk the talk on gender parity in leadership (challenge to prove me wrong, anyone?).
The same holds true for compassionate leadership. It’s easier to speak in compassionate talking points than to change one’s own leadership style. The prior will be bought by most external people, the latter will only be known by a small minority of (unfortunate, and usually disillusioned, sooner than later former) staff.
A leader’s integrity may be at stake, but there’s rarely an external price to pay. Which explains why so many leaders continue to talk the talk, but not walk the walk. The result is that change doesn’t happen, or happens at a snail pace.
Lessons
There are many similar examples to the above that apply to all of us working in development, where actions do not match words. I have written about some of these in my previous blog, using the case of vaccine equity, fair taxation, and climate change.
I’d love to hear and learn about more “solutions” to this dilemma from others, but so far, based on my own personal experiences and thinking, I’d suggest we all try the following:
Speak out. Reflect on – and more importantly speak out and act – if what we see and also personally are pushed to do runs fully counter to our moral compass of what feels right. Don’t only walk away with your feet and feel helpless when the walk doesn’t match the talk, but keep (or if forced to remain silent due to contract clauses or pressure: start) speaking out even after you leave. No-one other than the “talker” will continue to benefit from great talking points and rankings if they run counter to reality.
Ask explicit questions. In a recruitment situation, explicitly ask about work culture and strategic challenges. You’ll sometimes be amazed at what you hear (and run away with good reason!). Also reach out informally to one or two current staff, and (a mistake I’ve definitely learned from the hard way) the former staff who held the position you are applying for.
Don’t assume talk is the same as walk. Remember that many development organisations have large communications, marketing and recruitment teams and budgets. They are paid to lure great applicants, and make things look good – also because donors expect this.
Be the change, at every stage in your career. Perhaps most importantly – and this applies to any stage of your career – don’t wait for the change, but be the change. Don’t use slogans such as “pay it forward”, “shine the light”, “lean out”, “step back”, “diversity”, “gender parity”, or “compassion” because they help you rise to or stay in power. Walk the talk to make that change happen, not from a place of power to say good, but from a place of service where you can do good.
Many organisations fail to support personal growth when you progress in your career. Instead, the path gets narrower until it becomes stifling. Something has to change.
As you progress in your career, your teams, budgets and responsibilities grow. You can make more decisions, have more access to different leaders and networks, can decide how you get work done and when, and can shape an organisational culture, and reap all benefits of personal growth.
Except that in many organisations, you can’t.
The reality is often that you end up spending most of your time and energy stuck in between various leadership battles, dealing with bosses and staff who all want to claim they hold budget lines and manage all staff themselves. You’re slapped on the fingers for trying to make changes, and shown your place when you thought you were entitled to make decisions, no matter how small.
You’re sometimes stuck in the void of middle management meaninglessness, and left only with the hope that if you make it even higher, you’ll finally get to make those decisions, have more freedoms, be able to shape the culture….
The triangle narrows at the top
Everyone knows that competition at the top levels is fierce. The air gets thinner, and there are simply not that many leadership jobs out there, for a large pool of people who’d like to have them.
But there’s very little out there that prepares you for what these leadership steps mean in practice. The triangle gets thinner in other ways too. You don’t have time and are no longer allowed to “do work”, because you become responsible for managing people who do this work. You then become responsible for the managers.
And at all levels, everyone wants to do things, wants to gain more responsibility, and wants to shape things. What’s left for you to do?
Too many leaders slip into excessive micro-management at this point. They crave to do what they did when they produced concrete outputs. They want to be part of the team. They want to discuss and decide budget details, statements, and visuals. They de facto want to be part of the bottom of the pyramid again, with the exception that they get ten-fold the pay, and can use the “boss card” whenever it suits them.
Why leaders need to be supported in seeing their progress in an inverse triangle
The image below on the left exemplifies this pull to revert back to what other people in a team should be doing. In such a situation, it quickly becomes clear that no-one is leading, and everyone is battling to do the “doing”.
Leadership as a craving to do the things others in your team should be doing – or leadership as progress and growth?
The image on the right side is what should be happening. As your career progresses, your opportunities grow, and you progress, both in your responsibilities but also your personal growth. You allow those staff members who are expected to do things – well – to do those things, and don’t micro-manage. You lead and clear the way for people to get their jobs done well, and in a healthy working environment.
What needs to change
Careers that include not only more pay and fancier titles, but also growth, require a number of things.
Most importantly, the right people need to progress and take on leadership roles. If a manager or leader is only interested in nitty-gritty issues or doing all of the actual work, they shouldn’t be managing teams or leading organisations. Someone needs to manage and lead teams, and if a manager or leader is too busy in their comfort zone (left triangle), the result is usually competition and chaos.
Equally importantly, there needs to be clear division of responsibilities. Who prepares plans and decisions, who gives feedback on these, who makes a final decision? What issues get taken to the next hierarchy level, and what is only tackled at a higher hierarchy level? The larger the team and organisation, the less can keep going up and to the top, simply because that route will otherwise become a disastrous bottle neck.
Third, organisations need to allow space for their leaders to lead. Too many organisations keep rotating leadership levels as if managers and leaders were just cogs in a machine, all doing the same things, the same way. They stifle any freedom to suggest changes or improvements, or to do things in a different way. They are hugely risk averse, and treat managers and leaders as if they were work horses, not creative, intelligent, experienced people.
Final thoughts
Some leaders are not interested in growth, increasing their responsibility, or shaping organisational cultures. Some are there simply for higher pay, status, and ego.
But for everyone who is interested in a broader definition of career progress, give some thought to the above. Where have the above challenges been the norm, and felt disappointing and stifling as you have progressed in your career, or seen others progress? Where has a step upwards actually felt like progress, not like a disappointment?
There are, of course, also great organisations and leaders who know how to nurture careers and personal growth. They’ve understood that they need both the right people in management and at the top, and have understood that these people need more space. They work with an inverse triangle as their framework, and others should too.
“I actually recently heard about a Finnish boy who had asked his mother whether boys can become prime ministers as well. The shift is happening, and we have many excellent male and female role models as leaders.”
Maijastiina Rouhiainen-Neunhäuserer (PhD)
Tell us a bit about your background, and how you have engaged on leadership issues.
I am a Finnish communications professional and female leader, work as Strategic Communications Director for a global packaging company, and live with my family in Switzerland. Prior to working as a communications business partner to various functional leaders and company executives, I did research (PhD) on leadership communication, and consulted and coached leaders on various communication topics from thought leadership and change management to crisis communications.
We are living through challenging times with Covid-19. What are your insights on the role of leadership in such crisis periods?
Strong leadership in managing crises such as this unprecedented global pandemic is crucial. Those in charge – whether political, institutional, business or people leaders – are expected to help people navigate the unknown and uncertainty, acknowledge the risks related to it and give direction, as well as face fears and build confidence.
The role of communication in leadership is important, as leadership builds on human interaction. Never before have communications teams and leadership coaches been this busy and needed. We have coached leaders to listen, helped show that they care, and have translated constantly evolving scientific knowledge into understandable, clear information. We have also developed communication tactics and vehicles that enable interaction in our new situations (e.g. fully remote settings). And importantly, we have helped hold leaders accountable for ethical principles – to say and do the right things.
“The role of communication in leadership is important, as leadership builds on human interaction.”
We have also all gone through a crash course in epistemology and rhetoric: what is truth, belief and justification, and how do you make arguments? Eight months into the pandemic, the wider public expects political leaders to share as much information as early as possible, and justify their preferred approach to manage the crisis with data.
Are there any differences in how women lead in crises, including how they are chosen for or leave these roles during crisis times? Does the media also report on women differently?
Leadership, and in particular women leaders’ decisions and actions during the pandemic have been scrutinized by media. This is an important conversation, as it allows us to re-define leadership. The public conversation has mainly focused on how obvious the differences between female and male leadership styles have been during this crisis.
We have also seen stories about incredibly inspiring women leaders stepping up and demonstrating how efficient a female leadership style is in managing a crisis. For example, female-led countries such as Finland and Germany are said to have managed the first wave of the pandemic better. My own company’s crisis management team is led by a female executive, and I can only admire her caring and analytical, confident leadership style.
I would, however, not make a distinction between genders, as there are also men who have demonstrated excellent leadership during this crisis. Instead of making this a gender debate, I would put the relational aspect of leadership in the spotlight and focus on how the human side of leadership helps us manage the most serious business and political issues.
“Instead of making this a gender debate, I would focus on how the human side of leadership helps us manage the most serious business and political issues.”
Several women leaders have been reported to have mastered the Covid-19 response better because they are women. Is there truth to these arguments? Are women better leaders?
Instead of making gender comparisons, I think we should look at relational leadership attributes. Take the case of Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand’s Prime Minister, Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, and Sanna Marin, Finland’s Prime Minister. Their leadership styles differ from typical masculine leadership in three ways: their focus on care, their analytical approach and a focus on collaboration.
During the first weeks of the pandemic, research shows that people valued and sought determined and directive leadership. Many leaders responded to this by communicating in a resolute way despite many unknowns. But we then also saw some leaders showing both empathy and vulnerability in their public speeches. We learned that strength does not contradict emotions and care, but the solution is the balance between these two. As Jacinda Ardern put it in her appeal to New Zealanders: “Please be strong, be kind, and unite against Covid-19.”
“Please be strong, be kind, and unite against Covid-19.”
Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister, New Zealand
What also fascinates me is the way these female leaders have expressed emotions while staying calm and taking an analytical approach to combat the pandemic. For example, Angela Merkel’s government sought guidance from multi-disciplinary expert group before communicating the nation’s lockdown exit strategy. This showed that leadership does not happen in a vacuum but in interaction with others, and that good leaders bring the best out of people by connecting them with each other.
Lastly, for a communications professional like me, it has been a pleasure to witness how these female leaders have demonstrated inclusiveness and collaboration. The leadership language has shifted from “I” to “us” – a very welcome change.
Leaders have shown empathy, listened, and taken into consideration people’s needs and concerns. For example, Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin hosted a press conference with kids to answer their very honest and direct questions in layman’s terms. She has also shown trust. Instead of sanctions, Finnish citizens were asked – for example in the Prime Minister’s tweets – to take responsibility and to follow the rules.
I think that during the times of uncertainty, these key leadership skills help leaders build trust, get people to accept the challenging situation, commit to a common goal, and build confidence in our ability to navigate this crisis.
I often wonder how much gender norms and traits mold women in their leadership positions, or whether leadership positions, the structures and cultures they are embedded in, end up molding women leaders more? For example, do women leaders have to behave in more masculine and aggressive ways to get to the top and succeed?
I’ll answer this with my researcher hat on, as the question relates to the theory of traits and competence. Many people believe that a natural communicator or leader is born, but research shows that they can also be made. Not everyone comes with the built-in ability to lead, but there are ways to teach leaders or yourself how to do that. The same applies to women leaders – not everything is determined by our genes, but we can learn and also adjust our leadership style to the situation.
The other important aspect is the concept of contextuality. All leadership (communication) is contextual: leaders work and communicate within a framework of cultural rules, values, beliefs, and in a specific time. There’s also a relationship between leaders and followers. This framework determines how appropriate, effective, and ethically correct leadership is perceived as.
Gender biases are also very real. Women leaders operate within a given context, and their way to lead and communicate depends both on cultural norms and organizational culture, values and practices. For example, the expectations I face as a female leader in rather patriarchal Switzerland are very different than in my home country Finland, where gender equality is normality.
Or in an organizational setting, the female leader might be the only woman in the room and needs to adjust her style to male colleagues, along the lines of: “to have a seat at the big boys’ table you need to wear big boys’ pants”.
We bring our leadership capabilities and preferences with us, and how we use these capabilities depends on the context.
You are a woman working in a leadership role and have children. Do you ever talk about leadership issues with your children, or have you thought about encouraging them to aspire to leadership roles later?
My children are growing up in an environment different from what I or my husband know from our childhood. For example, I grew up in a rather gender-neutral Finland, whereas my husband comes from a conservative catholic region. We acknowledge the expectations there are for girls in today’s Switzerland and how they differ from ours.
I find it important to talk about all of this with my daughters, as it is my wish that my daughters can grow up confident and know how to stand up for what is right. This means staying true to yourself whatever the environment might think or expect you to do.
I do not think that a leadership position is a necessity to achieve a meaningful career, have impact or make this world a better place. However, if my daughters ever wish to take a leader role in a group or an organisation, I would like them to feel confident in doing so, and know how to behave in a way that convinces other people to trust and follow them.
“If my daughters ever wish to take a leader role in a group or an organisation, I would like them to feel confident in doing so.”
Our role as parents is to try to change this world to the better so that our children can grow up in a world where leadership is not defined by gender. I actually recently heard about a Finnish boy who had asked his mother whether boys can become prime ministers as well. The shift is happening, and we have many excellent male and female role models as leaders that my daughters can identify with.
During the Covid-19 crisis, you have been advocating for more principled leadership communication. Can you give a few examples of what this means?
Absolutely. As I’ve said, the Covid-19 pandemic has been a brutal but also valuable real-time exercise, even a drill, for leadership and communication professionals to work together. It has unveiled many things about our beliefs, priorities and ways of leading.
It has also shown us that leaders have both the economic power to be heard and ethical responsibility to stand up for what is right, and we leadership communication professionals are key consulting partners to remind them about this responsibility. We also have the knowledge and skills to drive meaningful and impactful leadership communications.
I’d like to use this once-in-a-lifetime experience as an opportunity to learn and change leadership communication practices for the better.
You’ll find more reflections from Maijastiina on how to re-define leadership on LinkedIn.
Having studied political sciences and governance, I have always been interested in power. Where are decisions made, who holds veto powers, who has influence?
I have worked in global health and development for over 15 years, and what increasingly bothers me is how divided our community is. There is a small group of „insiders“ who hold immense power over policy-making, funding, and the overall institutional set-up of global health. And then there‘s „the rest“, or the „outsiders“, who debate policy and decisions, and try to influece these.
I have worked on both sides throughout my career, and perhaps surprisingly to some, felt that there was a thought leadership void on the inside, and feel like there is immense thought leadership on the outside. Sadly, these two groups or circles seem to be nearly fully disconnected from each other.
On the „inside“, most discussion and interaction is inward-facing. It‘s an intense and also competitive space, and most people simply lack time to look beyond to see what else is being said and proposed. Interesting artciles are rarely circulated or debated, and very few people have time to follow discussions taking place or points made elsewhere. There‘s also some arrogance involved: having made it to the inside, many people feel more powerful, and „better“. They have insider knowledge, what is being proposed by the outside is dismissed as „ignorant“, and organisations on the outside (eg academia, think tanks, NGOs) are viewed as not as professional or as high in status.
This is not to say that there is no thought leadership inside power houses. But it is limited to the few, and suffers from a lot of yay-saying and lacks richness in diversity and debate. Those few who try quickly get pushed (or crushed) to tow the line of the status quo. I have to admit that I found it quite stifling at times.
Being on the outside again, I‘m in awe how much thought leadership is out there. Think tanks and individual academics are pushing boundaries, and unearthing difficult issues that challenge our impact as a community. There‘s a great deal of discussion and also collaboration, and people build on each others‘ ideas.
Sadly, very few people from the outside are heard or even known of on the inside. Just look at who sits in or provides input to board meetings, who is consulted on policy-making, who sits on panels, and whose articles are shared. Even those 2-3 people I can think of who regularly hob-nob between these spaces, primarily as moderators, are rarely listened to for their own opinions or content. Hence, only a tiny trickle of thought leadership gets through from the outside to the inside. Even less is shared from the inside to the outside, as the pull inside is nearly fully inward-facing.
The consequences of this divide are dire, including:
– Knowledge, experiences, analysis and proposals for change are not heard or taken into account by those who make decisions; a lot of important information is not taken into account
– Discussions and decisions lack diverse perspectives (especially from low-middle-income countries, ie LMICs, as has been well emphasized recently; but also from academia or CSOs), resulting in some unsuitable policies or such that address only narrow issues or needs
– Information on uptake or implementation challenges that could be shared and resolved upstream in policy design are not taken into account, and result in poor outputs and waste
– Top-down policies and decisions fail to get the support of broader communities, who could have played important advocacy, network, legitimacy and support functions
– Many previously learned lessons or experiences from other contexts are ignored, and the wheel is often reinvented.
I am strongly of the opinion that something has to change in the way we work and interact in global health. Inclusion and diversity are important to drive this change. But we also need to look at incentives and how work is structured, especially in „inside“ institutions. If all leadership and staff targets are focused on the organisational level, there is no incentive (or time) to look beyond, or learn from others. There is no incentive to strengthen policy design and decision makig to have real impact.
For the „outsiders“ (and this currently includes myself), we need to go beyond talking about change to truly advocating for it. This requires skills to build bridges to influencers and decision-makers, and build real partnerships for change. We‘re also stuck in our own bubble, but may not yet have fully realized it.
Connecting these two spheres in global health is not easy. Insiders face very different constraints, and are drilled to avoid risk and anything that could provoke funders. Outsiders are not a homogeneous community, and need to organize better to have more influence and access.
But if we fail to connect these spheres, global health policy and decision making, as well as funding, will continue to be a small insider game, and suffer from lack or diversity and intellectual poverty. The cost will be its impact.
Katri Bertram 