Entries in Association (3)

Monday
08Feb2010

Inequality - Women & The Baby Issue 

In my current research, I keep discovering how great the inequality is for women within my sector. In my current organization, women make-up a majority of the membership. Yet, when looking at the number of those women who are in executive positions the number is miniscule. It drives me nuts! As a woman, I plan to help fix this. The plan on how we will help women in my sector is still in the blueprint stages and is forthcoming.

Bellow is an article about Silicon Valley. As many can guess, the tech sector, is lacking in women. Here is Stacey Higginbotham's article Silicon Valley Has a Women Problem, But Women Still Have a Baby Problem.

A post yesterday on TechCrunch did a wonderful job of illustrating how many more men than women there are in the U.S. venture capital industry — and how that imbalance extends to tech entrepreneurs. It also extrapolated a rationalization for this gap that, while reasonable, was incorrect. Silicon Valley’s gender problem isn’t that complicated — it boils down to babies. As in, those who have them can’t be a startup CEO, too.

Vivek Wadhwa, the author of the TechCrunch post, included a nice list of reasons why women entrepreneurs and women-led venture-backed companies are scarce:

Sharon Vosmek, CEO of venture accelerator Astia doesn’t think that VCs have an overt bias against women. Instead, it’s the way the venture-capital industry operates. Vosmek says that these “systematic or hidden biases” include: 1. that VCs hold clear stereotypes of successful CEOs (they call it pattern recognition, but in other industries they call it profiling or stereotyping.) John Doerr publicly stated that his most successful investments – and the no-brainer pattern for future investments – were in founders who were white, male, under 30, nerds, with no social life who dropped out of Harvard or Stanford (2009 NVCA conference). 2. VCs invest in people they know. If women aren’t in their natural networks, they won’t get through the door. We know that still today, men and women network in separate business networks. 3. VCs want to invest in serial entrepreneurs. (This further reduces the chance for woman entrepreneurs.) 4. The VC community is obviously male dominated, and it just got worse…after the cold freeze VCs experienced over the past 24 months, many women partners exited the industry. As the Diana Project research shows, a firm with women General Partners is more likely to invest in women entrepreneurs.

However, it was a comment from TechCrunch reader Chem that actually laid bare the issue of why women aren’t better represented in tech — essentially, it’s because women have babies, and the perception is that when we do, we leave the workforce to take care of them. And while Chem’s stereotype isn’t correct ( I was back at work and even took on a more demanding job soon after my daughter was born), the fact that women are “supposed” to bear the brunt of raising children is a huge reason why women aren’t more visible at the helm of venture-backed startups. It’s the babies, stupid.

Or rather, it’s the idea that women should shoulder the burden of raising children, an idea that dominates our society to such a degree that many women and men buy into it without question. Society at large explicitly perpetuates motherhood and not parenthood (check out the New York Times, from stories that demand mothers learn how to speak nanny, to the spate of “wow-men-are-now-staying-at-home” stories, and implicitly enforces the status quo through its policies around access to childcare for babies, school calendars and thousands of other complicating factors that any family, be they dual-income or single-parent, must navigate.

And when that navigation does require a trade-off, it’s generally still the mother that makes it. Which means that yes, once women have babies there are forces that can keep them from taking on a 90-hour-a-week startup gig. We can bemoan a scarcity of female role models in tech, entice women into the math and science professions or even blame women who leave the work force to take care of kids for the lack of gender diversity, but to fix the problem, we’re going to have to discuss the lack of parity between men and women when it comes to raising children.

Because Wadhwa is right: Gender diversity is important, and women shouldn’t have to choose between raising a family and building a startup any more than men should.

Monday
02Nov2009

How face-to-face networking is becoming obsolete 

The following is from the Geek Girls Guide and written by Nancy Lyons. I underlined the next to last paragraph because of Nancy's comments on professional associations. Most individuals I come across in this line of work tell me they "don't get social". Nancy's point is that by not even trying to get it, you are making your work obsolete. As social networking continues to become more and more mainstream and the newer generations (X & Y) move up in the workforce, you are going to either have to have already gotten it, or you will be obsolete. In this economic climate, how can you afford not to not get it?

Recently a financial services provider for Clockwork (the Geek Girls have day jobs at Clockwork) sent a note asking us where we network for business.  I assume our contact was hoping to meet other small business owners like us and thinking that attending such events would be the best way to do that.  Without thinking I started to answer, but it was tougher than I thought to come up with any kind of meaningful list of networking events that I attend regularly to connect with business contacts. I stopped trying and simply responded that the majority of significant connections I've made over the last few years have been made via social networking.  In fact, I had tweeted only days prior that I was struggling with a particular experience with this financial services provider and, while I received several responses from competitors, I heard nothing from anyone from the brand itself.  It was unfortunate, actually, because this is no small brand.  In fact it's huge.  The idea that they seem to have a very minimal (if they have one at all) social marketing presence seems sort of backwards. 

Later that day I did an informational interview with a freelancer looking to make new business connections for new work.  While discussing her desire to find new opportunities and people in my network with whom I could connect her, I asked the question, 'What are you doing with social?'  She responded by admitting, as so many people do, that she didn't really see the usefulness of it -- especially Twitter.  I suggested that Twitter might actually be a very valuable tool in her quest for connections because, via Twitter, she'd have access to people she never would have opportunity to meet in any other setting.

Both of these conversations got me thinking about how some business and professional individuals still view social media.  They see it as too much 'social', there's not enough business value.  The Geek Girls always say that we're not here to sell our readers on social media.  But I would suggest that those among you who still think it's mostly fluff, might want to look start 'listening'.  Tune in to those people on Twitter that you know and respect in a professional capacity and then start to leverage their networks.  See who they follow and start listening to more peripheral conversations.  If you're curious you should know that Twitter doesn't work like Facebook because you can follow just about anyone.  And if you decide to participate you have that option, as long as you are contributing in a relevant, authentic way.  In essence, you can leverage your contacts' networks to determine those among them that could be beneficial for you to know and, ultimately, introduce yourself to them and participate in conversations with them.  It requires an investment of time and attention.  But the opportunity is not insignificant. 

When the Geek Girls are out talking to people about technology and social media I often talk about how we have opportunities to be better friends because of the connections social networks have enabled for us.  I know that I am a better friend because of what these services bring to my relationships.  Life is busy.  Being a mom and a professional and a person with interests, social networks have allowed me to connect and reconnect with my friends on my terms.  It may be late at night, I might be exhausted or in my pajamas, but I can make contact with my friends, catch up on their lives and their families and the things that are important to them, and remind them again that I care and I'm here.  But these sorts of interactions are not reserved for our personal lives only.  We can also make and foster new connections for business.  And I would suggest that business networking is equally as difficult for some in real life for some of the same reasons.  Using a tool like Twitter gives us access to people we need on our terms.  We can learn from them, converse with them, make an impression on them, perhaps even influence them, all on our own time and our own terms.  Perhaps even late at night in our pajamas.

I can join and participate in my professional associations, but my free time is so rare and so valuable that the events they produce really have to provide some serious value.   Getting a babysitter or coordinating with the rest of my family or sacrificing family time or the time I need to actually get my work done are all difficult prospects.  I am not alone.  Most people I know are very selective about the traditional networking and continuing education events they attend.  But when you consider the potential that social media offers, suddenly you're confronted with the idea that there are now, for the first time ever, far fewer than six degrees separating each of us from just about anybody. 

Don't get me wrong, the Geek Girl's also say that, whether you're a brand trying to have a presence for social marketing, or a person trying to engage with friends, family or professional connections, we do not recommend that social networks take the place of real-time interaction.  Social media is 'in addition to', not 'instead of'.  But wow, the potential for access and first contact is huge.  Where you go from there is up to you.  Don't discount this social revolution on the web.  It's moving like this because there really is something to it.  My recommendation is -- start listening and see what you hear.  And, if you're the financial services provider I mention earlier in this post -- call me.  I've got a few tips for you.

 

Monday
27Apr2009

Small Staff Associations and Social Media 

I was asked to present on social media to a group of small staff associations this week. They wanted to know what their staff of (1-5 people) can do with social media to maximize their efforts and small amounts of time.

My first point is really a side note. It needs to be said because more than one organization did not have a web site.

First- Have a positive web presence. If you aren’t able to design a website in-house, find an established firm that is able to create one and update it for you. If your website is out of date and hard to navigate, who is going to want to join your organization? If you don’t have a website, how are they going to figure out who to contact?

Second – Go where your members are. How do you know where they are at? Ask them! Think of all the prospect research you do to gain little insights so they make that donation, apply that concept to social media. If you are trying to target a younger population, go where that population is. Do searches on facebook, twitter, etc for key terms and for your competition to find people that may be interested in your membership.

Third – You have to fit into your member’s lives and send the appropriate amount of information.

...people lead cross-channel lives. I've done a fair bit of work in financial services, and one of the recurrent themes in my customer research is that people channel-hop — they receive monthly statements in the mail, they call a call center to get certain kinds of information or ask a support question, they go online to research more deeply and to engage in certain transactions, and they go to branch offices for yet other types of transactions.

The problem is that each of these channels is developed in isolation, with little regard to what other channels are doing. So every channel tries to do as much as possible, acting as if those other channels don't exist. I've worked with financial services firms that send 20-page monthly statements that no one reads. That's not what people want from the monthly statement — they want a summary and a sense of progress. If people want more detail, they're happy to go to the channel that delivers that best — online.     Quote Credits:  http://bit.ly/TabOw

It goes back to knowing your membership. Not just the stereotypical or vocal member, but all personalities of your membership. By understanding your membership, you are able to place your resources in the correct areas and not duplicate your efforts; in return maximizing your time.

By being on different mediums throughout the day I am able to respond to members quicker and in a more positive manner than email. Plus, I get to know them in a different light which makes connecting and creating that emotion connection to our association easier. In the end,  they are happy and I am happy because it saves me time.