By: Mary L Bennett, CEC, CIA, MBA
​
The power of sponsorship relationships is not very well understood in many organizations even though these relationships have been the electricity of career progression as long as there have been careers.  Intentional sponsorship, however, is frequently the missing element in building inclusive environments where all top talent can thrive.   Sponsorship is a key example where equity rarely flourishes. 

The issue of sponsorship is often subtle and requires a close look at how individuals move through the organization. How do they advance? How do they become visible? What is considered an increase in value delivered that puts someone on "the radar screen"?  Many of the subtle but essential rules about how an individual advances in an organization are real but unwritten. As a result , it is critical that all top talent have access to sponsors in their career journey.

Sponsorship in the development and career advancement process is often missing for emerging leaders, especially those who represent diversity from the current and past leadership teams. This is not because those in positions of influence are deliberately or even consciously excluding anyone but because  human beings regularly exhibit something called "affinity bias". This is simply a pattern of identifying with those who remind us of ourselves , with those on a path similar to the one we have taken.  We reach out to those who we feel an affinity with and "take them under our wing".  As a result of these human patterns the natural formation of traditional sponsorship relationships often unevenly provides critical "survive and thrive" training.  This is a key inequity in organizational cultures. 

In most organizations there remains a lack of broadly defined diversity in the majority of positions of influence and power.  The positions that represent deep knowledge of the unwritten rules are still today not held by individuals who represent a broad definition of diversity. In many cases, senior leaders naturally reach out to younger leaders  who remind them of themselves. When asked, senior leaders are often not aware that an uneven execution of sponsorship is happening and they are a party to it. When the question of why more emerging leaders who represent broader diversity are not in their circle, the leaders often indicate that they do not feel they can be a mentor to women, minorities, GLBT, or the disabled. They acknowledge, when asked to reflect, that they have reached out naturally to people they feel they can help because they have walked the same road. These influential leaders sometimes feel they do not have as much to offer the individuals who they perceive to be walking a different road.  This is in fact not the case, there is much they have to offer and it is possibly even more important they offer it to those who represent diversity because these individuals have less access to critical information about the majority culture. In addition, these individuals may represent unique perspectives, networks, and experiences that will make the organization stronger.   This is an excellent example of privilege that allies can and should put to use.  Sponsorship programming is a very practical mechanism for utilizing privilege within the DEI strategy.  Sponsorship is much more than mentorship.  
 
These factors are a catalyst behind the lack of an even playing field for all top talent. Without the same access to senior leadership, critical learning and developmental experiences, all  individuals do not have the same opportunities. 

Moving through an organization seeking advancement is a very
real journey. This journey is one that requires a map that comes from a sponsorship.  All individuals should be thinking about gaps in experiences needed to increase skill levels and personal balance sheet of talent. It is important to first understand what the organization is looking for in its emerging  leaders. This is not always , in fact not often , written. A sponsor provides critical information that helps the individual understand where they are on track and where they are missing the mark. While understanding high value activities is the first step in efficient career navigation, an individual is not always in a position to acquire access to these opportunities and experiences without someone in the inner circle acting as an advocate. In some cases, it is nearly impossible to broker opportunities such as committee assignments, over seas promotions, strategic client relationships, profit and loss responsibility without assistance. Advocacy from those in positions of influence is required. 

Many emerging female and minority leaders do not have deep sponsorship relationships. This fact slows the career progress of these diverse leaders. It creates real difference , not only in the opportunities that this talent has access to but also meaningful differences in learning and skill development. While it may be heresy to post this next comment- it is true. When we hear that there were no female or diverse candidates for promotion that were qualified...it is sometimes true because these candidates have not had access to the experiences needed to qualify them for the new opportunity.  This occurs largely because of a lack of sponsorship intervention which provides this access.

What can we do as individuals and organizations? Individuals must work to form relationships with senior leaders in order to access critical career navigation  information and support.  If you represent diversity from the current leadership team it is important that you work even more proactively to develop these relationships as they may not form naturally without you acting as a catalyst. 

Sponsorship left to its natural course has led us to where we are today.  This is why customized and formal sponsorship programs are required in order to build diverse pipelines of talent.  As an example, MLBC sponsorship programming is a proven strategy . With over 1000 individuals having completed the programming the results are clear.  The large majority of participants are retained and further progress within their career path.  Sponsors learn and begin to grow the concept of a more sophisticated and equitable sponsorship model within the organization. 

The good news is that talented individuals  can obtain what is needed  from multiple relationships and sources, and in fact should not expect to get everything from one sponsor.  Good programming teaches this and how to make it happen.

Putting all of your efforts into one relationship is not a good strategy because there will always be change within organizations. How hard a talented individual works and the quality of their work is not the only thing that matters... it is the merely price of entry.  Talented individuals  need to know if they are doing the right things at the right time in their career.  In addition, the right people must know they are doing the right things.  What are the "right things"?  Those activities recognized as having the most value to the organization today and into the immediate future.

Organizations that understand all of the above take a hard look
at their assignment, promotion and sponsorship processes. Uneven access to senior leadership can be addressed through awareness raising, sponsor programming and an enhanced talent development culture.

By: Mary L Bennett, CEC, CIA, MBA
​
There is a lot of buzz about the need for sponsorship relationships as opposed to mentor relationships.  What is the difference?  Why do women tend to have mentors and not sponsors?  How does this account for the lack of women in leadership roles?  Until we are inside the leadership team we often are unaware of how prevalent the sponsorship system is and how much it influences career progression and success.

The most significant differences between mentors and sponsors are:
1- the level of active involvement in the career of the protege
2-the level of influence the sponsor must have
3-the risk the sponsor takes upon themselves

Sponsors are in a specific position of influence within the organization.  Sponsors are also close enough to the protégés career trajectory and personal goals to accurately assess in detail where the protege should be focusing their efforts in the near future to accomplish professional (and sometimes) life goals.   In addition, the sponsor is in position to influence the opportunities the protege has access to and is willing to actively "sponsor" this individual by placing their own reputation and political capital on the line in support of the protege.  If we recommend someone for an assignment, promotion, raise, committee, opportunity of any kind, we put a portion of our reputation on the line.  These actions significantly impact the level and timing of key career opportunities.  Historically women have been attempting to access these opportunities on their own, while research shows that men more often have sponsors paving the way.  

The sponsor also plays the role of education, awareness raising and skill building which may be common to some mentor relationships.  One of the most challenging things about career progression is understanding exactly what you should be doing when , how to procure these assignments for yourself and how to ensure the right people know you are doing the right things.  These steps cannot be accomplished independently in most organizations.  Hence the need for a sponsor.  The sponsor role is much more comprehensive than a traditional mentor role.   Sponsorship is one of the most significant areas of inequity in the career navigation of women vs men.  This is due to affinity bias which is largely unconscious yet leads senior male leaders to sponsor emerging male leaders.  Sponsorship relationships are often left to chance.   This ambiguity creates the inequity and is easily remedied through formal sponsorship leadership development programming.   

By: Mary L Bennett, CEC, CIA, MBA
​
If we manufacture widgets we use materials, work in process and machines that combine with people power to create a product.  If we are in the knowledge business we harness and combine the talents of our people to create the services we sell.  We use equipment such as computers to support the service development and delivery and we may have a quasi tangible product such as financial statements or tax returns. 

It is difficult to deny, however, that the primary input to the delivery of the services we offer is our people.  The raw knowledge of our teams combined with their capability to create value with that knowledge is our "product".  Why is it then that in so many Firms we still see more time and effort spent on the upkeep of our IT equipment then we do on the upkeep of our people and their talents. This is not in any way to suggest that we should not invest in our IT equipment but that we consider the technological contributions along side the human contributions. 

Our people are our business. If we understand that our people are THE essential asset of our organization we also understand that we must invest in them to maintain and increase the contribution they make.  If you are not getting the contribution you need from your people you might ask yourself if you treat them as important organizational assets.  Consider some basic tips below:

-We certainly should invest in a regular review of the performance and development of our people- just as we engage in regular review and update of our software and hardware.
-We track our physical business assets but at any given point do we know where are people assets are? Might a competitor be working on pulling these assets out the door ?  What does it cost us to replace that talent in time and dollars? How do our clients feel about a revolving service team?
-Unlike machines our people have needs, desires and dreams. Do we know what these are? Do we attempt to provide what they need? Is this not the ultimate barrier to exit?
-We continually scan trends in the marketplace to ensure that we are investing in updated and/or new equipment to take our firms into the future.  Do we actively evaluate the competencies we will need for the future and follow through in recruiting and development of these new competencies? Do we prepare our culture for these new competencies?  Where would we be if we attempted to run our 2012 computers in the technological environment we used in 2000 or earlier? Are we not in some cases attempting to meet the needs of 2012 with the competencies of the past? Or we recognize the need for new competencies but ask them to thrive in the traditional environment of our past?

Our people are our business, does our investment in them reflect this fact?