Tag Archives: women in business
A Quote for the Day from Rachel Maddow (about Success for Women – and Everyone Else)
I’ve read three reviews of Rachel Maddow’s new book, Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power, and have the sample pages loaded into my iPad. It is on my “I want to read this book list,” which is long and ever-growing… But, sadly, I doubt that this book fits into my “I will present this somewhere” list, so it may be a while.
On The Daily Beast, Rachel Maddow’s ‘Drift’ Probes America’s Uneasy Relationship With the Military by Allison Yarrow, the article ends with this terrific quote from Maddow:
“There are many ways to envision female success. Ultimately, you don’t do anybody any favors by putting people in jobs they can’t do well in. The best way to win is to be better than everybody else,” Rachel Maddow said.
Put people in jobs that they can do well.
Be better than everybody else.
It can’t be put much more simply… what great insight!
—————
Here’s another good article about the book – Bullet Points: Rachel Maddow proposes solutions to decades of American military bloat, by Emily Bazelon, from Slate.com.
The Problem of Absent Voices
Chariots of Fire - Harold and Sybil at dinner
Sybil Gordon: [about running] Do you love running?
Harold M. Abrahams: I’m more of an addict. It’s a compulsion, a weapon.
Sybil Gordon: Against what?
Harold M. Abrahams: Being Jewish I suppose.
Sybil Gordon: [laughs incredulously] You’re not serious!
Harold M. Abrahams: You’re not Jewish, or you wouldn’t ask.
(from Chariots of Fire, taken directly from the video)
————————————
Andrew Sullivan’s blog is always provocative, rich, and wide-ranging. He (and his team) do not allow comments, but they regularly feature e-mails from readers — never identified by name, but frequently, identified by profession and/or background.
Here is an excerpt from a reader’s e-mail. This is from a woman:
I am a Wikipedia administrator, a volunteer position to which I was elected by community members. I am also a woman. I think that Wikipedia’s lack of female editors is a problem for two main reasons.
The blog had been focusing some recently on the lack of diversity on Wikipedia. In her e-mail, this reader has a really terrific paragraph:
The problem of absent voices is not limited to the lack of participation by women. It also includes the lack of participation by those older than the Gen-Y and Gen-X crowd. It includes the lack of participation by the poor. It includes the lack of participation by those in the global south, or those who are not internet-connected. It includes the lack of participation by ethnic minorities. It includes the lack of participation by people who are not tech-savvy.
The problem of absent voices: a great phrase, a serious, serious problem!
Bob Morris has done a really good job on this blog posting articles about, reviews of books by, and insight from, women. It’s one of many things I appreciate about him. But, take a look at this month’s New York Times list of business bestsellers. This month: 15 books, a total of 21 authors. 21 authors: 20 men, one woman.
In the world of business books, and as in so many other arenas, there is a serious problem of absent voices.
I speak monthly at our First Friday Book Synopsis, and at the Urban Engagement Book Club for CitySquare (formerly Central Dallas Ministries). Our First Friday Book Synopsis is a great mix of men and women, with a little diversity in other ways (not enough). But the Urban Engagement Book Club! – well, I wish you could see the group and listen to their voices. It is always introduced by a wonderfully talented young Hispanic woman, then I speak (I represent the white male category), and then the “follow-up” conversation is frequently led by an African-American man. The different voices, and the quite diverse audience, make for a different — and wonderful — experience.
So, yes, I am acknowledging the obvious – I cannot fully understand the perspectives of people who are different, nor can I present their perspectives adequately. But I can listen to their voices, and I should.
Are you listening to many different voices? Which voices are you not listening it?
And, by the way, you might have to go out of your normal way, out of your beaten path of gatherings and books, to hear their voices. I think it is worth the effort.
Include More Women in Key Positions, Pay Them Equally – The Solution Right In Front Of Our Noses
We hear ideas. We think, “I/we should really do that.” And then, we revert to the norm.
Over and over again.
In order to actually change, maybe somebody needs to “force” the change on us.
This is the problem underlying many other problems. I thought of this again when I read Can Women Save Davos? Quotas Aren’t Just Political Correctness by Jesse Ellison on The Daily Beast.
Here’s the problem. Women are not making enough headway. There are not enough women at/near the top. There is still great income disparity between men and women. And, all of the evidence points to this reality as a problem with many ripple effects. Or, to put it differently, if women were given much more access, more actual seats at the table, then the economy in the United States and throughout the world would get in better shape more quickly. In other words, fewer women in positions that matter results in serious negative consequences.
And this is what I think – most people are now convinced that this should change – but we simply, too easily, too readily, automatically, revert to the norm.
To the article: last year, only 17% of participants at the Davos World Economic Forum were women. This year, the organizers have mandated that each sponsor include at least one woman in their delegation (each delegation numbers 5).
In 2010, just 12 of the global Fortune 500 companies were run by women; one in 10 board members on Europe’s top listed companies were female; and in the U.S., women held just 16.8 percent of the 535 seats in Congress.
These figures are particularly disturbing given that gender parity is not just good for business, it’s good for everyone. In its annual survey on global gender equity, the World Economic Forum itself said closing the employment gender gap could increase U.S. GDP by as much as 9 percent. In the developing world, the Center for Work-Life Policy estimates that utilizing women could push per capita income up 14 percent by 2020, and 20 percent by 2030. “Study after study,” says Christina Tchen, White House director of public engagement, “shows that increasing education levels and prosperity of women and girls has been able to contribute to social stability and economic progress.”
The top-down approach may not be popular, but it works. Norway famously embraced quotas in 2002 and began requiring that 40 percent of all board members at state-owned and publicly listed companies be women. The measure sparked massive public debate, and success was by no means immediate, but now it’s considered such a success that in 2008, Spain introduced a similar recommendation, and both France and Britain are discussing following suit. Implementing these requirements, rather than letting them happen over time, makes for a difficult transition, even after the debates die down. But the trickle-down effect could be tremendous.
Companies that have both men and women in leadership positions have a higher return on their investments, and recent research from the London Business School suggests that productivity levels go up when men and women work in tandem—in part because gender parity counters the idea of groupthink, or the frequency of like-minded groups to defend ideas that may be ill-conceived. A McKinsey survey recently determined that more than 70 percent of companies that made efforts to empower female employees in emerging markets either experienced or expected to experience increased profits as a direct result of those efforts.
This reminds me of some of the findings cited in Womenomics by Katty Kay and Claire Shipman (I presented my synopsis of this book to a Women’s Business Group earlier this week):
A study in France found that companies with more women in management positions did better during 2008 – had higher profits – that those with fewer women. “Feminization of management seems to protect against financial crisis… In conditions of high uncertainty, financial markets value companies that take fewer risks and are more stable.” (Michel Ferrary, Professor of management at the CERAM Business School in France).
Women deliver profits, often in big numbers, and we are worth hanging on to… By every measure of profitability – equity, revenue, and assets – Pepperdine’s study found that companies with the best records for promoting women outperform the competition
Companies with women in top leadership positions have “stronger relationships with customers and shareholders and a more diverse and profitable business.” (University of California at Davis study).
Davos has decided to mandate the inclusion of women. This quota system may be objectionable to some, but the evidence seems to be clear – more women in positions of influence, with access to real power; more income equality; can lead to more success, better profits, a stronger economy.
And, by the way, it is the right thing to do.
More Women are Needed in the Pipeline – In Both Business and Politics (Anne Kornblut’s Notes from the Cracked Ceiling)
I am presenting my synopsis of Notes from the Cracked Ceiling: Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and What It Will Take For A Woman To Win by Anne E. Kornblut at today’s Take Your Brain to Lunch. This is a terrific two-hour event, led by Cheryl Jensen. It includes two 15 minute book synopses, followed by table discussions about the ideas in the books. Targeted at women in business, it is a wonderful event.
This book focuses on women in politics, women running for office, and the overall lack of progress for women in the political arena. (It came out last year, so it did not have the results of the 2010 midterm elections to include). Here is a paragraph that struck me about the difference between business and politics. It is about/from Meg Whitman (since thie book came out last year, this was well before she lost her bid for Governor to Jerry Brown in California).
In politics, so much time is spent talking, instead of doing. There are so few measurable results – no quarterly earnings report to wield, to prove things are getting done. At eBay, when financial reporters doubted her, Whitman simply had to wait until the next quarter’s numbers proved them wrong. In a campaign she has little to thrust in the face of a prickly press corps. Her complaints fit neatly into her outsider argument, but they also have the ring of truth.
“At least in business, whether you are a woman or a man, whether you’re African-American, Hispanic, or Asian or Caucasian or green, black, red, or yellow, it didn’t matter, because if you, in fact, delivered the results, that was enough to recommend you. There isn’t that here. There is a whole different feel to it. It feels to me, thus far, as less of a meritocracy and more of a popularity contest… “
And, she said with a hearty laugh, politics – with campaigns stretching out years – feels so slow. “This is sometimes a little like watching ice melt.”
The book states that the prospects for women in politics is about the same as the prospects for women in business. There are simply not enough women in the pipeline. This, I think, needs to change. Another quote:
In fact, the pool (in business) is almost exactly as small as it is in politics: Women make up about 15 percent of board director or corporate officer positions at Fortune 500 firms, slightly less than the 17 percent who hold seats in Congress.
Women In Business and The Knowledge Worker, The Knowledge Age, and Moving Forward (Insight from Richard Florida)
Richard Florida (The Rise of the Creative Class; The Great Reset) is one of the authors I just regularly “check in with/catch up on.” In a recent article, What Makes Women Rich, he makes a simple point very clearly and persuasively: them more opportunity for women, the more progress a nation can make. The article is worth a careful read. Here are excerpts:
Women make up the majority of the U.S. workforce and an even larger majority of knowledge, professional, and creative workers. In a provocative and controversial essay in this magazine, Hannah Rosin argues that the post-industrial economy is better suited to the types of skills and capabilities women possess. The current economic crisis has been dubbed a “mancession” by some – as men in blue-collar jobs have borne the brunt of layoffs and unemployment.
It stands to reason that economies that afford women more opportunity will gain economic advantage for the simple reason that they can tap a broader reservoir of talent and skill.
Economic opportunity for women is closely associated with the transition to knowledge-driven economic structures with higher levels of human capital and more creative class occupations. Women’s economic opportunity is also greater in nations which are more open and tolerant generally toward gays and lesbians and racial and ethnic minorities. Overall, we find an especially close association between the economic opportunity afforded women and our Global Creativity Index, a composite measure of national creativity and competitiveness. Nations where women have greater economic opportunity also have higher levels of overall life satisfaction and happiness.
Not only do women have greater opportunity in wealthier, more open, post-industrial nations, women are an integral component of the economic development equation. Nations that are more open to women and afford them more opportunity gain economic advantage by harnessing a greater level of human skill and potential. Now, more than ever, the path to economic prosperity requires further human development. Creating economic and social structures which develop women’s full talents and afford them the full range of economic opportunity is a key element in securing lasting economic prosperity.
Women Approach Business Differently than Men – Insight from Christine Lagarde
Women in business do make a difference. In Womenomics: Write Your Own Rules for Success, Claire Shipman and Katty Kay refer to a number of studies aboutways women impact the business environment. Here are a few quotes:
A study in France found that companies with more women in management positions did better during 2008 – had higher profits – that those with fewer women. “Feminization of management seems to protect against financial crisis… In conditions of high uncertainty, financial markets value companies that take fewer risks and are more stable.” (Michel Ferrary, Professor of management at the CERAM Business School in France).
Women deliver profits, often in big numbers, and we are worth hanging on to… By every measure of profitability – equity, revenue, and assets – Pepperdine’s study found that companies with the best records for promoting women outperform the competition.
Companies with women in top leadership positions have “stronger relationships with customers and shareholders and a more diverse and profitable business.” (University of California at Davis study).
French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde
On Sunday, 10/10/10, Christiane Amanpour interviewed French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde. (Article and video here). Here’s a key excerpt:
“You were a former CEO. Do you think women have a different way of approaching business or approaching the public sphere?” Amanpour asked.
“Yes,” said Lagarde, who is the only female finance minister in the Group of Seven industrialized countries. “I think we inject less libido, less testosterone …”
“Less libido?” Amanpour asked.
“Yes. And less testosterone into the equation,” Lagarde replied. “It helps in the sense that we don’t necessarily project our own egos into cutting a deal, making our point across, convincing people, reducing them to, you know, a partner that has lost in the process. And it’s probably over generalized what I’m saying. And I’m sure that there are women that operate exactly like men,” she said.
“But, in the main, and having had nearly 30 years of professional life … and getting closer to 60 than 50, I honestly believe that there is a majority of women in such positions that approach power, decision-making processes and other people in the business relationship in a slightly different manner,” she said.
The world really is different when there is genuine diversity in the decision-making rooms. And when women are in on those decisions, the impact is unmistakable.
