Her Place at the Table: A Womans Guide to Negotiating Five Key Challenges to Leadership Success

Many women take on demanding assignments only to find, as Old Mother Hubbard did, that the cupboard is bare. Additional resources are hard to come by in organizations today. At a recent conference for woman leaders , for example, we asked the group how many had been mandated to fix a problem or implement significant changes. Almost all hands shot up. We then posed a follow-up question: How many had to take on these tasks without additional resources? Over 80 percent answered in the affirmative . Collectively the women faced the prospect of doing more with less.

The scenario captured by that vote is the rule these days rather than the exception. Limits on resources create tough choices. In obvious ways they make hard jobs harder. But in one significant way they simplify matters. Priorities, always imperative, take on even greater urgency. Yet two traps distort the decision-making process and encourage new leaders to bypass prioritizing altogether. Keenly focused on budget constraints, they assume that they can cope and set out to fill the resource gap by acts of will. Alternatively, conscious of every dollar spent, they can fail to realize that certain expenditures have a hidden impacton visibility or morale that far outweighs the outlay.

• "I can pick up the slack ." It makes practical sense for anyone taking on a new assignment to figure out how to do more with less. But that process has political implications as well, particularly when it postpones any real resolution. A temporary remedyI'll make do and keep productivity up with what I've gotcan put the unwary in an unsustainable bind. Expectations never get adjusted to the resources available and poor results are traced to a lack of effort. Alternatively, even when you produce the desired results through sheer determination and grit, the work behind them goes unrecognized.

  Margaret got caught in this bind when she was tapped to launch her firm's latest line of products in a new market. In taking the assignment, Margaret knew she would need funds to support the marketing effort. She would also have to draw on the capital of various people within the firm. Not only could she use their expertise; their standing within the community would ease her transition. Preliminary conversations with her new boss were encouraging, but they produced no definitive commitments. "He told me that he would see what he could do," she says. Excited about the prospect, Margaret figured that she would get what she needed once she was in place and could demonstrate some results.

  Margaret threw herself into the work, making the connections she needed and picking up the slack when others in the firm did not immediately come forward. She found herself "working long hours at a killing pace."

  I didn't spend a lot of money to get this done. From time to time I did ask for additional resources. I did need help from other people. But neither the resources nor the help ever materialized.

  Margaret's requests were denied in part because her own actions showed that she was getting along fine without them. She was doing all the work herself, without involving others in the firm and with limited resources. No one had any reason to think that she would not continue to be "a good soldier." In particular, she gave her boss no incentive to divert resources her way. But the consequences went further. Margaret got the launch off to a good start by working day and night. When it came time to choose a leader for the emerging market, Margaret was passed over. The consensus was that she was a good worker but did not have what it took to be a leader.

• "I have to keep costs under control; I don't have any latitude or room for extras." But "extras," like beauty, are often in the eye of the beholder. New to a position, it is only logical to concentrate on bringing a project in on cost or meeting a budget. But the power of the purse can slip into parsimony until keeping costs down becomes an end in itself. Attention naturally gravitates to those expenses or outlays that produce tangible results. The trap here is not efficient management of resources. That is a given. The danger arises when efficiency is interpreted in ways that blind the newcomer to the symbolic aspect of resources.

Certainly people in the organization watch resource allocations carefully , looking for important clues to the backing you enjoy. But the acid test of resources often comes from members of your own team. In many organizations, people make choices about leaders they want to work for and with. Are you the kind of leader who will use what you have to motivate your team? Will you have the influence to secure the resources I need to look good and perform well? If I join your team, will the decision benefit my career? These questions are all subjective , and perceptions shape the answers. At this level, resources are not line items on a budget, they are symbols of influence.

The symbolic nature of resources eluded Sally when she took over as head of global technology services for an international firm. Promoted over her peers, Sally had to battle the perception that she did not have much influence with leadership. These hidden doubts came out into the open over an off-site meeting where top leadership planned to launch its new corporate initiative. With cost cutting rampant throughout the company, Sally decided that her budget would not support increases in travel allowances. She gave the go-ahead for group members to attend the meetingprovided, however, that they did not run up any airline or hotel costs. As is often the case today in corporations, Sally's team was spread out over many geographical areas. This decision effectively put an end to the group's participation in the meeting and precipitated growing unrest within its ranks. Sally dismissed the complaints as sour grapes; these people, she concluded, "were clueless about the need to cut costs."

In point of fact, it was Sally who was shortsighted. The travel costs were relatively modest compared to the opportunity. Top leadership was kicking off its most important strategic initiative in years and her people attended only by satellite hookup. Key members of the group concluded that she really did not have any influence with the powers that be. If she could not wangle the dollars for them to go to an important meeting, she certainly would not have the clout to garner the resources for the ambitious plans she had laid out.