Women on Board

Last Thursday morning, I attended a breakfast meeting at the home of Valerie Frederickson – the Queen of HR recruiting in the Silicon Valley. She invited local women CEOs, entrepreneurs, and VCs. The guest of honor was Phred Dvorak, a Staff Reporter for the Wall Street Journal.

The conversation turned to an article written by Ms Dvorak , “Breaking Into the Boardroom: Women Gain Seats as Directors”. Based on findings by Catalyst (http://www.catalyst.org/) women are making progress, albeit slowly – about half a percentage point per year.

So, what’s the story here? Part of the problem according to Catalyst is the fact that many boards recruit from the ranks of retired executives. Although women make up 37% of the managerial workforce, only 1.65% of all chief executives at big companies are women.

Ms. Frederickson brought up an interesting point. Many women, tired of slow progress in large public companies elected to start their own businesses – a trend much in evidence among the assembled group. Unfortunately, that takes one out of the running for most large company boards. If you don’t have senior level experience in a large public company, you won’t be considered for a spot on a board.

Another point that was raised was the fallacy of non-profit board experience being transferable. Although I’ve not seen hard numbers, I would say that women are far better represented on boards of non-profit organizations. However, while the amount of work can be just as daunting (if not more so) as many who have served on a non-profit board will attest, there is somewhat of a prejudice in the for-profit community that it’s not a “real job”.

So what’s a woman to do?

Part of the answer lies in developing and working your network. John Lucht, author of The Rites of Passage, reminds us to ask for a reference instead of a job. He suggests the following script, in an article from RiteSite University (works for men, too!) “Say something like this: ‘I'm beginning to think about outside directorships. Nothing suggested so far has been very attractive. However, a few fairly reasonable suggestions are beginning to come in. Even if it takes a year or more, I'm not going to jump until it's a company I really respect. Sooner or later, however, I'm probably going to need references, and I haven't yet served on a board. Could I possibly suggest you as someone to talk to? You head a board and know what's important in a board member. You also know me quite well and could discuss how I might measure up. Would you be willing to talk with someone, if and when there's a need?’"

Another excellent strategy is to find a mentor. Part of the problem, for many women, is not knowing what to expect on a board. Many women at the breakfast noted that most women were less likely to tackle something without experience and/or knowledge than men were. Men were more comfortable “making it up as they went along.” I think that may be more of a temperament than a gender issue, just ask anyone who knows me!

Generational Diversity in the Workplace

Most of us are accustomed to thinking about diversity in terms of ethnicity, race, gender, etc. However, while at the SHRM convention in Washington D.C., I heard an exceptional presentation by Tamara Erickson, President of the Concours Institute and co-author of Workforce Crisis: How to Beat the Coming Shortage of Skills and Talent.

As part of the decline in birth rates and a boom in life expectancy throughout the industrialized world, the workforce is becoming more age diverse. It is not uncommon to have four generations working together. What I found fascinating in Ms. Erickson's findings was the inclusion of focus group studies with each of the generations. Their study suggests that each generation's values and work ethic were influenced by the "character shaping events" that occurred as the self-absorbed fog of adolescence lifted.

The following was taken from slides in the presentation:

The Traditionalists

• Born 1928-1945
• Character shaping events: First manned space flight, Cuban Missile Crisis, significant increase in economic prosperity; growth in white collar jobs
• Values: Conformity, stability, The American Dream

The Boomers

• Born 1946-1964 (Leading Edge '46-54; Trailing Edge '55-64/5)
• Character shaping events: Assassinations of idealistic leaders; Vietnam War, widespread protests, Civil Rights Movement; Watergate
• Values: (Leading Edge) Personal expression, idealism, health and wellness, youth; (Trailing Edge) Distrust of government, health and wellness, family commitment

Generation X

• Born 1966 - 1980
• Character shaping events: Significant increase in parents' divorce rate, entry of women into the workforce, significant increase in their parents' unemployment, growth of the Internet, end of the Cold War
• Values: Free agency, street smartd, quality of life, cynical

Generation Y

• Born 1980 - 2000
• Character shaping events: Terrorism, Columbine, Global warming and natural disasters, AIDS, ubiquitous technology, working mothers, unprecedented bull market, pro-child culture
• Values: Optimistic, team players, respect for institutions, tolerance for diversity

Fascinating stuff! What will be interesting to see is how company cultures will evolve to accommodate the need to attract, motivate and retain such a diverse workforce.

Purple Stretch Hummers vs. Chimps

OK, so this is not my serious post about the SHRM convention and exposition but I felt compelled to share that one of the high points for me was the intense competition between Monster.com and CareerBuilder.com to win the hearts and minds of America's Human Resource professionals. Monster was definitely a major force at the conference with purple t-shirts, bags, etc. They even sponsored a Monstertini Party taking guests to the event in purple buses and purple stretch Hummers. It looked like an easy victory. Their booth was always packed, conference attendees were wearing special tags in hopes of being the lucky receipient of a special gift - I never found out what the gift was, however. Then it happened. Career Builder had had enough. The last day, they brought out their secret weapon: The Superbowl Chimps. Remember the ads they ran at the Superbowl with offices full of chimpanzees? Well, now they were at the convention and yes, you could have your picture taken with one of the lovable little primates. There was a stampede to their booth.

P.T. Barnum lives!

Cold Calling Your Way into the Executive Suite - Career Boost - Career RC - CIO

Cold Calling Your Way into the Executive Suite - Career Boost - Career RC - CIO

A great article by Debra Feldman - one of the best cold callers I know!

Reframing the conversation

Yesterday, while driving to an appointment I listed to a fascinating piece on public radio's Marketplace: The gender gap in venture capital. It seems that about 30% of all U.S. companies are led or owned by women, however, women receive only 10% of all venture capital.

The majority of venture capitalists are men and often women and men see market opportunities differently. They went on to cite a great example.

The St.Louis company, Lori Coulter True Measure, uses a combination of body scanners and software to custom fit women's swimwear. Male investors didn't see the market opportunity - not having gone through the annual humiliation of trying on 17 swimsuits only to find you still can't hide the curse of Aunt Edna's thighs.

Lori Coulter came up with something they did understand. Golf clubs. If you could use digital body scans to customize a golf club . . .

The story set me thinking about the larger issue of how we communicate. Obviously when we, as individuals try to communicate, we tend to use the style and vocabulary we understand. We assume that it's the norm. When we try to teach something, we usually fall back on the way we like to learn. Same holds true with management. If I am given an assignment, I don't want to someone to tell me how to do it. I want to know the objective and I'll determine the best way to achieve it. So I tend to manage others that way. Guess what, not everyone likes that. The best communicators, the best teachers and the best managers learn to adapt their style to fit the needs and the experience of others.

The Dumbo Curse

Leadership IQ Leadership Training
"WASHINGTON, D.C. – June 20, 2006 -- According to a new study by Leadership IQ, 87% of employees say that working with a low performer has made them want to change jobs. 93% of employees say that working with a low performer has decreased their productivity. But only 14% of senior executives say their company effectively manages low performers. And only 17% of middle managers say they feel comfortable improving or removing low performers."

So what's going on here? As managers are we more concerned about wrongful dismissal suits than poor performance? When I first became a supervisor, sometime in the Mesozoic era, I remember going through endless training on progressive discipline and the need to document everything. I probably let a few people slide because I'm lousy at documentation. I just remember being scared to death about disciplining anyone because of all the dire warnings we received.

Then there's the Dumbo curse. I had a therapist friend who had the theory that more people went into counseling as a result of a line in the Disney classic, Dumbo. The line? "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." The credo of passive agressives everywhere!

The Cult of Personality

All the talk about Bill Gates "retirement"(see post in The Executive Update) started me thinking. You've probably read Jim Collins' book Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... And Others Don't. As in his first book Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies , he compares two companies that are very similar except that one made the leap and the other didn't. In one section he discusses the role of the CEO and finds that in all of the great companies, the CEO was NOT a household name. While all of them had drive and ambition, the leaders of great companies were not characterized by larger than life personalities. In fact many of them could be described as self-effacing. They were focused on leaving a legacy in their company and a culture that fostered a smooth transition when they stepped down. They had the guts to forego the glory for the good of the company.

As an aside, I'm not sure Bill Gates has sought the spotlight so much as had it thrust upon him by virtue of the company he built. But love him or hate him, his personality is irrevocably intertwined with Microsoft.