To progress you need to acquire management and people skills as well as technical ones – those with a good combination are very rare!

For example, I’m qualified lawyer (now I am interesting just user agreement, privacy policy etc for web and software), some years in university and after I was interested and worked also in economics sphere (especially marketing, business planning, currencies and derivatives market). But now I’m strongly learning software development and I want to work with this all next time. Our system can not give to me good proposal, and I am looking on west too like many specialists in Ukraine (US or Europe). So, problem in your Country is much narrower and less than in Ukraine.

P.S. How you can see English is not my native language, I’m just learning. I am sorry for my grammatical mistakes.

• Should I have expressed my concerns directly with my boss?

This all depends on what type of a boss he was. If he was approachable in the mornings in his sober state then I would have advised that this was a definite course of action. I certainly would have liked to have bounced my concerns off him in a direct approach if my relationship was strong enough to endure a bit of mano~a~mano. I have a feeling that this may have paid dividends. Most people are open to constructive criticism if it is done with subtlety and tact. It depends on his character sans booze and your ability to tread carefully and decisively.

• Was this a matter for HR?

The military approach is always to work through the chain of command. So step I is to approach the boss. Step II would be to approach his direct superior and so work your way up the ladder until you achieve satisfaction. HR would be Step III as far as I’m concerned. It may have yielded good results if his direct superior was approached in a subtle manner with your concerns. He may have had the same concerns, and would appreciate a chance to solve it before some young gun in HR spilled the beans.

• Was it appropriate for me to do anything at all?

Appropriate …………definitely yes. Difficult as the situation is, it is most probably important to do something. Ignoring a problem is not the answer in the long term. I feel that it is important to act, but one should act with subtlety and sensitivity.

• What was the appropriate course of action to take especially considering that I had conflicting loyalties, not only because I liked and admired the man, but because any action on my part could have resulted in career-limiting consequences?

I think that you should have approached him when his mood was a little more receptive. Timing is very important. I would have complimented him on his abilities, and his success, and I would have told him about the aspects for which you admired him. I would then have told him that despite all the admiration there was an area of serious concern. I think that would have been the correct approach. If he was not receptive to that approach, then it may have been time to take it to the next level at HR or his immediate superior.

For the longer answer I’d like to explore the issues a little deeper, examining the question from both sides, since I believe the best results will occur when the needs of the organisation coincide with the needs of the individual. It’s a question which cuts across the issues of knowledge management, talent management and reward strategy.

As you suggest, career progression has traditionally been through the management route which is not necessarily suited to every ambitious individual. In fact, two of my own past managers (very good managers, incidentally) confided to me they felt they’d been promoted because they were good at their old jobs rather than because they had any particular skill at managing other people.

It’s certainly not a given that the skills required to make a good manager are well-developed in the skillset of the good technical expert. Management may not necessarily suit his or her natural personality style and may not play to his or her strengths.

Moreover, the talented technical expert may be reluctant to be shoehorned into a managerial role for fear of losing autonomy, opportunities to express creativity, the intellectual challenge present in the technical position, plus a lack of opportunity to demonstrate one’s own excellence repeatedly. So the individual may be positively demotivated by the prospect of progression if it’s possible only through management!

And yet, in rejecting this traditional career path the individual may feel stifled by the limits on pay that you refer to. Then add to the mix a lack of recognition, status, and influence that might come from declining the management route, all of which contribute to more demotivation. This may then develop into resentment at a lack of reward and recognition for the value the individual brings to the organisation.

So, unenthused by the prospect of management, the frustrated individual may nevertheless be actively demotivated by a lack of advancement. Little wonder the talented individual perceives a new employer as the most attractive option!

But what is the present employer supposed to do about this? Leaving the issue unaddressed is likely to lead to diminishing loyalty, diminishing discretionary commitment and, inevitably, diminishing performance. These result ultimately in the loss of key staff, which you suspect has already happened.

And departing staff take with them not just their valuable expertise but a lot of tacit knowledge and market information. The investment made in their selection and training has been lost and now needs to be made again. Further, the departure of these employees may send subtle signals to others about the long term prospects within the organisation as well as signals about its commitment to technical development.

Of course why managers and fee-generating consultants get salary rises is easy to understand: they influence the company’s profitability in ways that are visible and often easy to measure. Therefore, anyone whose contribution is less visible must demonstrate real value to the organisation if its leaders are to act responsibly in reward and retention.

This requires the organisation to identify which skills, which individuals, which behaviours and which values it wishes to retain. By first clarifying then making explicit such practices, organisations can begin to embed a culture with which talented individuals can more fully engage.

Back in my business school days we heard repeatedly that, since products and processes are increasingly replicable, it’s often people which are the source of much competitive advantage. You say that your company’s success depends on its technical expertise to develop and maintain its products, and look after the customers whose revenue you no doubt wish to retain. It seems likely your sales people and high fee-earning consultants depend on these highly developed talents also. Perhaps your corporate strategy is influenced by the input and opinions of your technical team. So you see there are arguments to be made for managing these key staff in a way that benefits both employer and employee.

So looking at opportunities and options for action, then, here are a few thoughts for the organisation:

• Set about developing a culture in which technical expertise is respected, rewarded and recognised.
• Create a goal of becoming an Employer of Choice for your technical stars of the future.
• Indentify the technical skills your organisation needs, then implement policies to attract, develop and retain them.
• Find out what motivates your technical stars most and explore way to provide it.
• Offer bonuses for agreed performance measures or equity where appropriate and possible.
• Get creative about ways to reward and motivate your talented individuals. Ideas could include flexible hours, sabbaticals, time off for study, flexible benefits whereby pay can be sacrificed for holiday or other work/life benefits.
• Provide other ways for your technical stars to shine by demonstrating Thought Leadership in articles and papers, at committees, conferences, with industry or academic bodies.
• Offer the individual some time providing consultancy for your organisation with commensurate pay for the relevant portion of time.
• Organise some short term job-swaps to promote greater awareness of what’s actually involved in differing job types.
• Create a separate career path alongside the traditional management route with job titles, status and remuneration appropriate to the individuals’ real value.

A final word on pay. According to Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene theory of job satisfaction, “hygiene” factors such as pay cause dissatisfaction if inadequate but have little impact on long-term satisfaction when present in higher quantities. So though your colleagues may claim to be leaving because of low pay, it’s possible they’re using this as a proxy for some other unarticulated dissatisfaction. Unless of course your rates of pay are so low as to qualify as “hygiene” issues, which I sincerely hope is not the case. Either way, it would be worth having the data in order to be able to challenge such claims if necessary.

In summary, it’s about finding out what works best for your fellow stakeholders and identifying where that matches the needs of the organisation. And that might take some work. I recently heard the story of a Chief Executive who demanded the HR department become as well-acquainted with the motivations and desires of their staff as the marketing department was with their customers. How many organisations can claim that level of commitment to its people?

Finally, and in the spirit of a coaching dialogue, to what action are YOU now committing? Do keep us posted.

1. Marketing
2. Research and development
3. Production
4. Administration
5. Financial reporting and financial systems
6. Human resources
7. Logistics
8. Corporate governance
9. Social responsibility
10. Customer care

The mix of the above can of course vary depending on where the company is in its life cycle. A brand new enterprise will of course aggressively pursue turnover and will concentrate resources on marketing to the exclusion of all else in its efforts to capture market share. A more mature company will look to its social responsibilities as an important means to its longevity and ultimate survival. Business cycles also demand different emphasis of the business essentials. The better companies will vary their emphasis based on trading conditions and their long term strategies. However I can assure you that the best companies will maintain a healthy balance in their strategies. They will not overlook long term goals for short term gains.

If you have a technical ability that is fundamental to the wellbeing of the institution that employs you and that institution seems to be favouring other inputs, it is indeed reason to be concerned. It may be a short term strategic decision or it may be a fundamental strategic error on behalf of the company. It is best to bring this to the attention of management and sell the concept to them. If they choose to ignore the valuable contribution your department has to offer then maybe it is time for you to move on to an environment that values your expertise.

In South Africa we have legislated against all types of discrimination in the workplace. We have even gone so far as to set quotas for certain groups of workforce. There are targets to be met for employing what we call “Historically disadvantaged individuals”. Women form part of what the current South African legislature terms as Historically disadvantaged. There are quotas for women, physically challenged, and people of various ethnic origins. The legislature has recognised that due to past imbalances, it is now necessary to enforce compliance to redress the injustices of the past. South Africa recognises that women have been particularly discriminated against by a male dominated society.

This type of legislating against past injustices may be abhorrent to some who believe in a non interventionist government. When you face an extreme situation that has persisted for years, then it is most probably wise to take an official stance against this type of discrimination. Women are often helpless in the face of this type of discrimination in the workplace. Male dominance can hamper advancement and curtail any progress. This is where it is the duty of the corporation to step in and lay down the ground-rules. Women have a right to be concerned in a male dominated society. The correct approach is to ensure that the company you work for champions equal rights, and has a constitution and a corporate culture that encourages advancement in the workplace and has zero tolerance against any form of discrimination. Being the only woman in an office environment is a strong indicator that the company you work for is not serious about equal opportunity employment.

The prevalence of exactly these sorts of issues is what precipitated my establishing a consultancy to work with executive men and executive women on the difficulties and perceptions inherent in these circumstances. There is no ‘one size fits all’ answer and very much will depend on your culture and industry and the level of gender intelligence GQ in your organisation.

I’m reluctant to generalise, as this can serve to perpetuate stereotypes and the self-fulfilling expectations which arise from them. Yet my own experience, as well as that of other men and women I’ve spoken to, suggests to me there are cultural differences in the way men and women communicate. Perhaps more noticeably so in the generations preceding mine. I hope we can encourage more discussion about this here, by both women and men.

So… I’m going to be looking at your question from a coaching perspective: looking at what’s actually happening, from various angles; generating and testing out a few hypotheses; then exploring options and opportunities. That’s what I’d like to do now.

First, as William’s suggested above, I think it make sense to start with what’s within our personal sphere of influence. So, with this in mind, let’s explore what else could be contributing to your experience rather than (or in addition to) the obvious gender difference. Could it be, for example, that you are a relative newcomer to an existing team where the group dynamic is already established? Could you have hit a tricky stage in the team’s formation or development? Are you bringing to the group an expectation, a work ethic, new demands or a style which disturbs the status quo, generates resistance or even hostility? Are you sufficiently tuned in to the politics, alliances or hierarchies within the team to be able to either respect or challenge them effectively? Could your team members be talking over you as a reaction to not experiencing being heard themselves? Is there any possibility of resentment or disappointment that someone else (including one of your team) didn’t get the job you’ve got? If so, are they actively seeking to help you succeed in it? I also wonder whether you might have some uncertainty, doubt or nervousness about your role, which the guys are sensing? Or is your team a collection of naturally noisy, forthright individuals who are just being themselves in your presence?

I notice you refer to your team as “goods guys at heart” and I think it would be remiss of me not to question something here. Are you saying you understand them to have good intentions, despite the fact that they talk over you? And is there any possibility this could be a way of excusing their behaviour, and thus colluding in it?

I notice, also, that you say you prefer working for a male than a female. This causes me to question whether you may have some existing preconceptions about gender differences in the workplace, which are playing themselves out here. I know some women do prefer working for men. Unfortunately I once heard this myself from a female who was assisting both me and my (male) boss! I wonder if you’ve come across the Mahatma Ghandi quote, “You must be the change you wish to see in the world?” You see, if you prefer working for a male rather than a female, what’s to stop your male team members feeling the same way? Are you even expecting them to feel the same way? And, if so, how are you going to encourage more ambitious females to fulfil their leadership potential?

It would be interesting to know why it is that you prefer working for a male than a female, as I feel it could be useful for you to distinguish precisely what it is you prefer. Is it a style of communication, decision-making, or other way of being that works for you? Is it the chemistry that sometimes occurs across genders? Some reflection on this may pay dividends. And, once identified, perhaps there are aspects of the preferred behavioural styles that you could try out yourself.

Moving on, then, to options that you could consider practically implementing, here are a few initial thoughts:

· Take a reality check, as William suggested. If there’s a team member you know and trust well enough to be open with, you might be able to ask him for his perception. Ask also for ideas about how you can get more air time, and a greater experience of being taken seriously.
· Only you will know whether this would work given your relationships and your circumstances, but another option would be to ask the entire team for their perception, and then deal with whatever comes up. You could ask them for their view of your managerial style and ideas for how to be more effective.
· Or your team could formalise this process by undertaking an exercise in 360-degree feedback designed to take your team performance to the next level. Psychometrics and team profiling tools are perfect for this, providing insights into individuals’ styles as well as understanding team dynamics.
· Study the behaviour and language your team responds to, and try to operate more from their worldview.
· Take a good look at the organisation you’re working in and ask yourself is the behaviour you’ve described part of the cultural paradigm? What’s the policy on diversity? Do you have a mentoring scheme? Ask for support from HR if necessary and report any instances of genuine discrimination.
· Be clear about the behaviours and results you actually want. Define your criteria for success in this area and begin to embody it. Examine any preconceptions you might have about men and women at work and jettison any that are obsolete.
· Establish some ground rules for communication in meetings or conference calls. For example, all meetings are chaired, perhaps on a rotating basis; no one interrupts another person while speaking; anything that’s not mission-critical gets scheduled to be dealt with at another time… You’ll know what’s right for you and your organisation.
· Identify someone you respect, who’s succeeded in this area already. Perhaps Hillary Rodham Clinton or someone from the commercial world who’s succeeded whilst maintaining the values important to you. Identify the attributes you most admire and start to embody them.
· I know you wouldn’t have been appointed to this position without the skills or experience for the job. Nevertheless, if you think they’d be useful, I have a couple of worksheets on Understanding Your Audience and Establishing Credibility which I can forward to you if you’d like me to.

I hope this exploration has been thought-provoking and useful. And I hope this is a discussion to which others will contribute, so we’ll get a sense of other people’s experiences too. Please let us know how you get on. If you’d like to be keep track of other responses to this question, you can check the box below to “notify me of follow-up comments via e-mail.”