Raise time is a conundrum for managers, eagerly anticipated and anxiously dreaded. As both givers and receivers, managers are at once the brokers and the broken. That’s because, except at the senior-most levels, what applies to their employees, generally applies to them as well. Stature changes scale, not principle.

By intent or by accident of position, raises are a way of exerting power over staff and yet, for many supervisors tied up in a complex merit raise process, it is a disempowering and frustrating exercise, fraught with the potential to enhance the discontent and cynicism of that very same staff. Raises are necessary evils, barely satisfying long-standing wants with, at best, short term returns. At the end of the day, the positives are fleeting while the negatives linger in the fridge like a left-over tuna salad sandwich.

I have been asked by a number of readers to discuss raises… more precisely, how to ask for them.

There is a difference between unionized and non-unionized staff raises, the former governed by negotiated collective agreement, the latter essentially by management fiat. I will focus on the second.

Asking for a raise is a little art and a little science. But with timing so much a factor (as we will see), it is also a lot of luck. It shouldn’t be, but it is.

So, here below, are four things to take into account when asking for a raise.

1. Consider the Context.

Put your desire (need?) for a raise in context. It may be the best of times to ask for a raise, but it may also be the worst of times. Every company goes through stuff and even those that try to benchmark the industry and that try to maintain a proven, disciplined, meritocratic process regardless of economic volatility and market vagary will take a step back when things get tough. Despite policy, companies are at different places at different times and, as your mother probably told you, there is a right time and a right place for everything. In your specific company, division or even department, the timing may simply not be right for a raise.

Yes, you say, but yours is a special case. You have taken on additional responsibilities or have achieved something truly special over the course of the past year. There is an old English proverb that goes: Circumstances alter cases. So, indeed, yours may be a special case, but, if the company is having financial issues, if there are confounding circumstances, you may have to rethink your timing or, at least, your approach.

Under stress, companies don’t always behave in a consistent or fair manner. Asking for a raise creates stress. Your boss may be under pressure. Perhaps, an important deadline has been missed, a performance target missed by a mile. Your messenger is no longer in a position to be helpful.

That does not mean you shouldn’t bring up the issue at all. As negotiation guru Chester Karras has wisely declared, you do not get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate. Most likely, if you don’t ask, you don’t get. So if you realize the timing is bad but feel you are truly deserving of additional recognition and remuneration, discuss it with your supervisor, tell him or her that you understand the situation and do not wish to add pressure to the system but, all that said, you would like this to at least be acknowledged in your appraisal and at least mentioned to senior management. It might just get you to the next level. At the very least, it will be appreciated and be added to the bank of good will from which a raise could be drawn when the timing is more propitious.

Bottom line: Look around. Listen hard. Be wise.

2. Be honest with yourself. Do you really deserve special consideration?

Did you have an extraordinary year or did you ‘merely’ do excellent work or extra work. Because, frankly, excellence and hard work are not causes for reward. They are, in tough times especially, the minimum acceptable standards for performance.

Most companies of size have a raise policy and raise period, likely in the first quarter. Pretty much the only way to get a raise outside this period is to get a promotion or, at least, a notable increase in responsibilities. In cases where an employee had a significant achievement, the likely reward is not a raise but a bonus.

You’ve got to stand out. You have to take leadership on high visibility projects and then execute perfectly. You have to turn around disasters that have been hanging like albatrosses around the corporate neck. Perhaps you have revitalized a fading brand. Or saved a plant slated for closure because of poor productivity. Perhaps you have come up with a groundbreaking technology that opens up a new and highly lucrative market or dramatically reduces costs. If you show you can spin straw into gold, you have a claim on some of that gold.

Conversely, if your request comes as a surprise, don’t be surprised if it is rejected.

3. Be prepared.

So you have your supervisor’s attention. Set up a formal meeting expressly for the purpose. Nothing dampens the mood like an unwelcome surprise. As with any meeting, you must go in prepared. Remember, this is your meeting so you must take control.

By now you should have looked through all the salary calculators and know what is appropriate for your position, in your industry, in your area. These calculators always have a range. Find your place in the range based on your level, experience, and scope of responsibilities. Fudge for qualifications and skill set. By defining a range, you are not only helping yourself, you are giving your manager a negotiation strategy and wiggle room. Present your accomplishments – the ones that are the foundation of your request and put a present and future value on these accomplishments. How much money have you saved or earned or will be saved or earned for the company now and down the road? By giving him a range and the ammunition to use, you have done half his work for him. He can calculate in his mind the ceiling suitable for the circumstances and he knows the minimum you will find acceptable. That minimum number should be one at which you will come away satisfied.

Some companies cap promotion raises at 5%. Some companies will try to limit the ‘damage’ by splitting the raise over two years. Know your company and, again, know the context in which your raise will find itself.

Do not threaten. Under any circumstances. If an employee lays down an ultimatum and threatens to leave should the ultimatum not be met, a good company man will say, “Good bye. Send a postcard.” A poor manager will succumb, look bad to his boss and resent you for it. Rightly so.

4. Have a sponsor. Have two.

You’ve heard the expression: It’s not what you know; it’s who you know. Well, I would amend that to: It’s not who you know; it’s who knows you. It is good if your supervisor is supportive, better if he is mentoring you, better still if he is managing your career. But it help immeasurably if your supervisor’s boss knows and likes you, wonderful if the CEO knows who you are and has heard good things.

Outstanding performance gets noticed. Heading up a project of import can put a spotlight on your work, especially if the outline, progress and/or conclusion of said project are formally presented to senior management. Three times blessed. It is an opportunity not to be missed.

It also does not hurt to be friendly to senior people in the Human Resources department. Yeah, I know. But some of them are actually human. HR specialists can be pretty good at structuring a deal that works for the company and employee. They would know precisely what can and can’t be done, given the financial climate and salary structures under which they have to operate. They know how to work the system because they are the system.

Conclusion

There is no bulletproof way to ask for a raise. But, if it is truly merited and it otherwise doesn’t seem forthcoming, ask you must. Put the odds in your favor. Get your timing right, get your support in place, be prepared and make your case calmly and forthrightly. It may just be the smartest thing you did all year.

Good luck.

Despite the lead-in, this is not really a piece on CEO salaries, separation pay or stupid spending. Enough forests have been laid bare and countless terabytes expended on these subjects. Instead, I would like to write about those pour souls being sucked down these ethics and financial holes, caught in the swirl of all this dirty bathwater.

They are the middle managers and senior managers who execute the corporate will: department heads, directors, even vice-presidents. (Note: Some people would remove VPs from this discussion. In many ways, though, VPs do the same work as those directly below them but with an added layer of corporate responsibilities. They also have more information to keep them awake at night and more meetings to attend.)

There are a few things you have to understand about middle management.

First, they are indeed in the middle. They are the spokes of the corporate wheel. They are the messengers, bringing the news, good and bad, to and from the field. They bear the brunt of both CEO wrath and employee frustration. They have to translate corporate strategy into action, overcome internal weaknesses and face down external threats. They take their work home with them, tethered to their laptops, always on call. And they, more than anyone, pick up the slack when front line workers are let go.

Arguably, for what they do, they are hardly overpaid. Those below them in the corporate hierarchy imagine large salaries, bonuses, perks and privileges that simply do not exist. When it comes to reward, in fact, these managers are far from the middle.

How far? William J. McDonough, Chairman of the Public Company Accounting Board (a creation of the Sorbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) attacked the excesses of large company CEOs in an article on corporate greed.

In 1980, the average large-company chief executive officer made 40 times more than the average employee in his or her firm. By 2000, the multiple of the average CEO’s pay over that of the average worker in the firm had risen, according to some studies, to 400 times. “There is”, said McDonough, “no economic theory, however farfetched, which can justify such an increase. In my view, it is also grotesquely immoral.” (Note: Remember, McDonough is talking about large companies. CEOs of small to medium sized companies have more modest ambitions.)

How much of that largesse trickles down? The answer is, simply, not much. And not far. In most companies, the salary gap starts becoming pronounced at the VP level. On the other hand, says Todd Milbourn, finance professor at the Olin Business School at Washington University, “there’s still a pretty significant gap between, say, a senior vice president and a CEO”. My experience is that, in most companies, especially small and medium sized companies, VPs make something in the order of two times middle managers who, in turn make only percentage points better than the senior members of their respective staffs.

Bonuses tend to be somewhat more skewed. Perks – in my opinion, at least – are generally small potatoes, usually taxable and, anyway, beside the point.

For the increment in pay, the middle manager is also every bit as vulnerable as his employees. More so, when new management appears, either in a changing of the guard or merger / acquisition.

In the recently published The Truth About Middle Managers (Harvard Business Press), Paul Osterman, professor of human resources and management at M.I.T.’s Sloan School of Management, points out that for the last 20 years, white-collar workers and managers have been vulnerable to layoff. “What’s happened in the last six months”, he says, “is just a little more intense than what’s been going on since the mid 1980s.”

The word ‘delayering’ has entered the vocabulary as a good thing. Taking out middle managers, say the human resource gurus (if not the HR managers), streamlines the organization, enhances communications and facilitates rapid decision making. I believe it does exactly the opposite. This pendulum, swinging way to the right, has a very sharp edge indeed.

So life is increasingly difficult and the times particularly rough for middle management. It is nigh impossible to move up these days and, arguably, unwise to do so anyway. They are truly, and incorrectly, between a rock and a very hard place.

To that end, I humbly put forward, for your consideration, five suggestions for surviving the cut. Admittedly, I am not alone in providing free advice. The First section of the December 8, 2008, issue of Fortune magazine, for example, also offered up five tips, four for keeping your job (though only three are useful) and one in case you don’t.

My credentials: I have lived through – and, indeed, helped organize – large scale layoffs. It is a troubling process – even for the most human with the best of intentions. It damages the soul, leaving scars that – in my case, at least – will never heal.

That said, I have learned things going through the process that are worth sharing. I have learned, for example, that there is a jockeying for resources. The number of cuts are usually fixed (by someone in Finance!), but the nature of the cuts is often up for debate and the specificity of the cuts, in most cases, comes down to the individual. The good news is that there are generalities that can be observed, generalities about who gets cut first, who, unbeknownst to them, balance ever-so-delicately on the bubble, and who survives without question. Even when whole departments are shut down, there are those plucked from the anonymity of the group. It is worth understanding why.

1.    Find a mentor. That is, find someone in a high place who likes you and who thinks what you do is valuable. Someone besides your boss. In the layoff planning sessions, lists of names will be bandied about. You want someone to say, “Woah! This name should not be on the list. If anything, I can find a place for him.” It will be costly. Names do not get removed from lists; they get substituted. So your benefactor will have to give up something to get something.

How do you find a benefactor?

2.    Get noticed. Most people think that lying low is the best strategy for survival. Keep your head down, they say. Never be the first one over the hill. This is incorrect. In my opinion, it is exactly the wrong strategy. Working hard, in itself, is not enough. Toiling in obscurity is not nearly enough. Starting early – like today – get involved in a high-visibility project. You have to bring something to it, of course. A specialty. A skill. One of the people I know who was designated for termination was a brilliant analyst who was always the first choice of every project team leader. Her value was widely known. She was simply in the wrong place – a department being eliminated – at the wrong time. The Finance department had no idea she was even on a list. When it became known she was to become a ‘free agent’, they happily reached out for her.

On the other hand…

3.    Avoid not-for-profit projects. Surprisingly, being a good citizen carries no weight. Working on the company’s United Way campaign, for example, pays zero dividends. Organizing the Christmas party…ditto. I have actually heard it said, to nodding faces, “Yes, she’s a fantastic person…always involved…but that has nothing to do with the business.” If you have to get involved in a project, make sure it is one that moves the business, not civilization, forward.

4.    Be self-sufficient. Don’t count on your boss to hold your hand; he has problems of his own. If he has to give you work, you are almost certainly expendable. If he has to help you get your work done, you are vulnerable. Faced with a down-sized department, your supervisor will look for a self-sufficient, self-starter whose hand he doesn’t have to hold.

5.    Do not be self-indulgent. Do not be a contrarian. These are tough times for everybody. They are about to get worse, so there will be plenty to complain about. The last thing your supervisor needs is a whiner. I had one employee who had too many principles for her own good. On several occasions, she considered suing the company for imagined wrongs. Everything down to the air she was breathing was subject to debate. Not surprisingly, so was the opportunity for advancement. When it came time to prepare ‘the list’, imagine whose name was near the top.

So there you have it: five things that will help save your job. Please note the word ‘help’. In a sweeping layoff that reaches triple and quadruple digits, even the best can be swept out to sea with the bathwater.

One more thing: these tips will be of service, cuts or no cuts. Right now, you have to think about your job but, remember, your career is just around the corner. So keep your head while looking ahead.

Good advice at any time.

In the Knowledge@Wharton case, the stimuli for discussion were executive hires at financial megalosaurs Merrill Lynch and Citigroup. Stanley O’Neal (Merrill) and Charles Prince (Citi) were asked to leave their respective companies subsequent to the mortgage securities fiasco. In December, John Thain, CEO of NYSE Euronext and a former president of Goldman Sachs became Merrill’s chairman and CEO. Citi, however, went inside, tapping Vikram Pandit. Then again, Pandit was hired by Prince just a few months earlier so he barely qualifies as an insider; he was Citigroup’s investment banking head before his new appointment.

(Subsequently, Merrill was acquired by Bank of America. Pandit, meanwhile, faces major restructuring challenges at Citi; check out Gary Weiss’ article in the September issue of Portfolio magazine.)

The Wharton discussion takes place at two levels: the issue of going inside or outside in key executive searches and the importance of succession planning in general.

CEO Selection

The selection of CEOs is as much a politically-motivated, risk-mitigating, investor-sensitive decision as anything. Boards, like those at Merril and Citigroup, go outside to let the investment community know that they recognize there are internal problems and that a change in direction – and a changing of the guard – is merited. It would be impossible to advance anyone associated with the old regime.

It is risky (Wharton’s words) to bring in someone at the height of a crisis. There’s a huge learning curve to understanding a company’s strategy and culture. A CEO who comes in from the outside is very dependent for information from and vulnerable to the perspective of those left …an irony in itself.

But what about lower level executive positions? The consensus seems to be that this is the most appropriate level for leadership training and succession planning because this is where the likelihood of selecting internal candidates is highest.

Indeed, Peter Cappelli, management professor and director of Wharton’s Center for Human Resources feels it is better to focus on skills improvement in general than to groom people for specific positions. “I don’t think the idea ought to be to develop people for a particular job,” Cappelli says, “because the odds of using them in that way are pretty small. Both the person and the job have to be lined up too exactly for that to happen.”

Unfortunately, despite the supposed emergence of workforce planning, most firms seem to have abandoned the systematic management of talent, not only as a priority but as a core human resources activity.

Planning Pros and Cons

They argue that businesses operate in fast-paced, highly-competitive, increasingly-global environments; it, therefore, only makes sense to access the broadest base of talent available when seeking specialized skills and technical knowledge. The internet makes tapping into this base easier and faster than ever. To boot, the needed skills and knowledge can be acquired on a contractual basis, reducing long-term overhead cost commitments. Finally, bringing in new talent at all levels on an ongoing basis maintains freshness and brings to the organization new perspectives needed in an ever-changing world.

On the other hand, I would argue that a company should be diligent in maintaining and leveraging the intellectual capital of its organization. I have always been a big believer in the value of experience, codified process knowledge, and intellectual property (brands, trademarks, patents and licences). These are all best home-grown.

I also believe that self-fulfilment, not self-gratification, is the prime motivator of success. There is no better motivator of people – especially in the upper levels of a company – than the opportunity for advancement. It is, of course, an opportunity that must be earned, not given. But developing talent coincident with the strategic mid- and long-term needs of the company, enhancing leadership and management skills, and substantively encouraging upgrades in education to ensure employees are fully-conversant with the latest technologies are all cost-beneficial.

Finally, rather importantly, stuff happens. People resign, retire, become ill. Some fail to adapt to changing circumstances, management, or technology. Assuming their responsibilities cannot be reassigned – a big assumption – they must be replaced. Without diminishing the value of and need for new blood, there is also value in and need for continuity, connectivity (relationships with stakeholders) and chemistry.

Whatever their approach, companies should take as much of the drama out of the succession process as possible. Employees – especially senior ones – should understand their respective company’s policies going in and their own potential for growth on an ongoing basis. That their company goes inside or outside to fill the CEO position – or any management position, for that matter – should never come as a surprise.

There is no company that has too many good people. So, if you interview someone bright, ethical and enthusiastic, someone with a good work ethic, someone whose training matches the position you are seeking to fill and whose attitude is a perfect fit with the group he or she would be hired to join, go for it.

Hiring While De-Hiring

Companies take hiring especially seriously when they are in re-engineering mode. The ingress and egress of people come and go in turns; they must, therefore, be handled carefully so as not to get in each other’s way. But serious and cautious do not necessarily mean wise. Re-engineering sometimes gets in the way of intelligent thought and intelligent hiring. If a critical position needs to be filled, fill it. Quickly! I have seen companies stall hiring, saving salary and losing invaluable momentum in the process.

Inside Hiring Outside

I have been privy to numerous debates about hiring from within as being a virtue or a vice. One CEO said to me, “If a company cannot find anyone from within to fill a senior position, then management, starting at the very top, has failed”. I know of several Fortune 500 companies that move people up in spiral fashion, alternating between staff and operating positions. Others, however, see things differently. Companies, they say, need to refresh themselves, need to add new blood, new ideas, new energy. They see recycling employees as slowly grinding companies into mediocrity. I have even witnessed debates about what constitutes inside and outside. For example, how would you qualify a long-term temp being made permanent? Or the rehire of a former employee who has gained valuable experience elsewhere? Trust me, those competing for the position have very different – and not altogether generous – views of the issue.

Family Matters

Then there is the matter of hiring family. Generally, the more paternalistic the company, the more likely it is to hire employees’ relatives. Not surprisingly, this maximizes loyalty and minimizes turnover. Not surprisingly, those who prefer hiring from the outside see reasonable turnover as healthy and the lack of turnover ossifying. What is healthy? Between 5 and 10% annually. I am of two minds on the family issue. It should not prevent a hire, all things being equal. But, things are never quite equal. When family members are involved in anything negative (a layoff, for example), emotions will run somewhat higher than usual. Conversely, when family members do well, there is always a suspicion (even if there is not a hint) of patronage. Many companies would rather not take the chance. It’s a shame.

When Too Much is Not Enough

It is easy to understand why you wouldn’t risk hiring someone you believe is too junior for a position and likely not up to the job. It is more difficult to accept not hiring someone because they are too senior and likely to quit within six months because the job would not be enough of a challenge or provide enough opportunities for growth. Surprisingly, I have seen the second case occur more often than the first. The problem is clearly bigger than the people involved. If any job situation does not provide enough scope or latitude for growth, then the company is not worth the time applying to in the first place. Jobs must be clearly defined. Job situations, however, should never have boundaries set so tight that we cannot foresee growth, laterally or vertically, for quality people who are placed in them.

Running the Gauntlet

In some companies, even lower level hires are expected to meet a variety of difficult thresholds, to say nothing of a host of senior managers, before getting the nod. I find it strange bordering on the scary to force entry-level prospects to run a gauntlet of managers, with gusts up to vice-presidents, to get a job. They are repeatedly put on the spot, a spot that I imagine seems to them somewhere close to the guillotine. I can understand – and, in fact, always insisted on – the process for senior hires. I personally have interviewed over a dozen candidates for senior positions. But I can also recall the process once being used in a way that completely intimidated a wonderful candidate for a relatively low-paying clerical job. I must confess, though, I kinda sorta didn’t follow the process. In truth, I counseled the candidate on how to navigate the gauntlet, how to handle the pressure and the people involved. Perhaps I helped, perhaps my help wasn’t needed, but the candidate did just fine. And two years later is still doing fine, thank you very much.

Acquired Rights – and Wrongs

Being acquired or merged usually has its down-side or, more precisely, down-size for the acquired or merged company and the people therein. The rationale given invariably revolves around synergy. In the new math, one head is better than two. Redundancy is good only in IT and nuclear deterrence. For example, there is no need for two finance departments, especially since there can be only one treasury into which all cash flows and one set of books into which all the numbers flow. The problem with most rationalizing is that expediency and incumbency trump quality. You go with what and who you know; both are highly prejudiced by proximity, that is, you go with those close to home. The take-away of an acquisition is that something has to give.

It is the same at the commercial level. Looking for synergies will almost always mean the rationalization of suppliers, large and small. This reflects not on the greed of the purchaser but on that of his suppliers, for acquisitions often provide the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to have it all.

A Changing of the Guard

A change in leadership will likely create a measure of vulnerability for direct reports. As in the case of the acquired company, loyalty can work in reverse, accruing to the original stakeholders or based on prior knowledge. The new CEO will assess the staff he inherits using both objective and subjective measures. At the end of the day – usually by the end of the first 100 days – he will go (or stay) with whom he is comfortable, from whom he knows he can command loyalty through thick and thin, and to whom he can confidently delegate difficult but necessary tasks. Not surprisingly, this may mean bringing along old staffers with whom a rapport has already been built and a necessary level of confidence already established. To the discomfort (though not the discredit) of incumbents, ‘may mean’ very often does mean.

Once again, a new buying team at a key customer could well entail the end of an enduring relationship, contractual obligations notwithstanding. A change may reflect not just pre-existing loyalties, personal and organizational, but also policy shifts. The new buyer may, for example, decide to move from split accounts to sole vendorships or vice-versa. Uncertainty is to be expected and you’d better have a good story to tell.

When the Going Gets Tough

When the numbers don’t add up to where they ought, odds are good that budgets will be cut. Management will, at one point, begin to talk about productivity, i.e., output divided by headcount. To enhance productivity, you can either increase the numerator (always desirable) or decrease the denominator (almost always the default) or, of course, do both. Any of these options becomes a driver for reengineering which, for most, does not mean refocusing the organization but shrinking it. There is a widespread belief that, in any restructuring, less is more. True or not, for those who are victimized, it is certainly less.

So, yes, there are circumstances that will shift loyalty into reverse (as in our first two situations) or move it to a back seat position (our third). Those circumstances invariably arise from a significant change – of leadership or of fortune. Even in explaining loyalty, more of the one would likely mean less impact from the other.

It is too easily taken as a given that loyalty can no longer be found in business, that it goes as far as the nearest turn of corner and downturn of market. There is no real loyalty between companies and their employees, nor between suppliers and customers. When the slightest push comes to the merest shove, goes conventional – or, more precisely, convenient – wisdom, people will switch on a dime for a dime.

Three decades of experience tells me that this is simply not true. Of course, nothing is so simple, but I would most strenuously make the case that loyalty is alive and doing rather well under difficult circumstances. It takes a great deal of push to topple the walls that most employees build around themselves to maintain the security of their jobs. It takes a most egregious shove to overcome a buyer’s resistance to change.

The case could well be made that employees care more about their jobs than they do about the companies that provide them, that their loyalty travels only so far as their pay cheques will carry it. I would posit that people will almost always try to do their best for their employers and that given the opportunity and appropriate tools, most would succeed. They, equally, want their companies to do well, understanding full well who butters their bread. Despite all the griping around the water cooler and over Kokanee beer, most would be more than happy to wear the company colors and wave the corporate flag. Because now, as always, job security trumps job satisfaction.

Does this loyalty go both ways? Most companies – at least the good ones – know that you can never get enough good people. Most managers – at least the good ones – know that their success depends as much on the support of those below them as on that of those above. It is the sheep, after all, that make the shepherd.

Corporate buyers look for value as much as price. Even those charged with the purchase of commodities know that a secure and consistent supply chain is invaluable. Price will get an order, but relationships will get – and barring catastrophic screw-ups – keep the business. Incumbents will get the first call and the last look. They will be given the benefit of the doubt because buyers have no doubt about the short- and long-term benefits of doing so.

Suppliers will seldom chase business – even potentially more lucrative business – that would jeopardize their relationships with existing customers. Those that do will find out soon enough that what goes around comes around, that loyalty – or lack thereof – cuts both ways. They will come to realize that there is a lifetime value to customers that, while not easy to calculate, is impossible to ignore. Mostly, they will learn that shareholders are not interested so much in profit as in sustainable growth. Sustainable growth comes with protecting the base and growing with key customers.

Everyone will have a tale to the contrary – and nothing upsets the equilibrium of loyalty faster and with more finality than a changing of the guard – but it is precisely these exceptions that define the rule. And so, in general and on principle, I am in agreement with American writer, publisher and philosopher Elbert Hubbard who said, “An ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of cleverness”. At a minimum.

The Marketing Department bulletin board of my old company was – and appears to still be – the place for things weird and wonderful. Last week, while visiting, I found this piece from Savvy & Sage prominently posted.

Savvy & Sage is a bimonthly magazine for seniors, with topics running from Alzheimers to annuities. In its September / October 2007 issue, S&S published an excerpt from a 1943 issue of Transportation magazine. A Guide to Hiring Women, it was “written for male supervisors of women in the work force during World War II”. Among the 11 tips:

- Pick young married women. They usually have more of a sense of responsibility than their unmarried sisters and they’re less likely to be flirtatious.

- When you have to use older women, try to get ones who have worked outside the home at some time in their lives. Older women who have never contacted the public have a hard time adapting themselves and are inclined to be cantankerous and fussy.

- Husky girls are more even-tempered and efficient than their underweight sisters.

- Retain a physician to give each woman you hire a special physical examination – one covering female conditions. This would reveal whether the employee-to-be has any female weaknesses which would make her unfit for the job.

- You have to make some allowances for feminine psychology. A girl has more confidence and is more efficient if she can keep her hair tidied, apply fresh lipstick and wash her hands several times a day.

- Be tactful when issuing instructions or in making criticisms. Women are often sensitive; they can’t shrug off harsh words the way men do.

In the early ‘70s, I worked for a large engineering company. My boss was loathe to hire women on the basis that they were unreliable, constantly missing work to take care of domestic problems. Worse, they would almost certainly go off on maternity leave just as soon as they started to become useful. (I can only imagine now what he considered ‘useful’.) In a case of misplaced paternalism or, perhaps, simple misogyny, the women in that firm had to ask their male supervisors for the key to the ladies’ washroom. The attitude was both a cause and an effect of the demographics of professional engineering at the time: only one percent of registered engineers were women. Of course, ignorance may have also had a little something to do with it.

Times have changed, right? Fast forward, if you will, to 2007. Only 13 FORTUNE 500 companies were run by women, only one in the top 50 (Angela Braly, President and CEO of health insurance provider WellPoint). The baker’s dozen is a record, up from just 10 in 2006.

In the past few years, there have been countless articles profiling women in power, analyzing what motivates and deters women from seeking leadership roles, trying to ferret out those particular-to-women personality traits that make them perfect or imperfect candidates for the corner office.

I have worked with many women executives over the years and those with promising careers whose climb ended just short of the top rung. Most brought high levels of integrity to their jobs. Most often, the principle driver to succeed was what often became the biggest stumbling block: respect from others. Know what? These things are hardly peculiar to women.