Tuesday, July 26, 2005
In the Company of Women - Part 1
It was not until I heard the reaction to Carly Fiorina’s commencement speech at the North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University that I started to believe the truth of what Pat Heim and Susan Murphy had to say in their book (In the Company of Women: Indirect Aggression Among Women; How We Hurt Each Other and How To Stop, by Pat Heim, Ph.D. and Susan A. Murphy, Ph.D., MBA with Susan K. Golant (Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam: 2003)).
Before being ousted by HP, Carly was considered one of the most powerful women in public corporate life (by most men). She used to say that “gender didn’t matter” in her climb to the top rungs of the corporate ladder. Then, in her first speech after the fall, she talked instead about how the boys at AT&T dubbed her a "token bimbo" and how she experienced other prejudices from her rising-star competitive peers at Hewlett-Packard who tried to “diminish and disgrace" her.
There it was, facing me in all its glory: the “Power Dead-Even Rule”. Even Carly Fiorina had to, finally, re-balance the Power – Relationships - Self-Esteem triangle -- to enable women to feel more comfortable with her, more accepting of her as a “powerful woman”, by playing down her importance and by sharing “trouble talk”.
And the female reaction to her commencement speech at NCAT was softer, more accepting, more tolerant than was their response to her speech in May 2004 at Simmons College (Boston) where she spoke more assertively, that “gender shouldn’t matter”.
Heim/Murphy describe the phenomenon of “female-to-female conflict”: indirect or covert aggression. Women attack women in such a way as to remain hidden, undetected, in order to avoid retaliation or social condemnation.
Whew! What a scary concept! Think “ambush” and consider the synonyms they use to describe the phenomenon:
Heim/Murphy describe a need on the part of women to maintain a balance among the three forces:
Power is the external influence one wields in the outside world. Relationships are our connections to other people. Self-esteem is the internal power one feels: the sense of inner strength and self-worth.
Relationships are a keystone for women. “The importance of social interactions in the workplace is the most significant difference between the genders,” according to Heim/Murphy.
Hierarchies are structures for re-enforcing men’s beliefs about themselves and their self-esteem. Hierarchies result from competition: the creation of social structures that are predictable and orderly, and which prevent anarchy among males.
Hierarchies do NOT serve the same needs for women. They do not prevent “anarchy” among women. In fact, the existence of hierarchies may create an environment that fosters “anarchy” or a sense of imbalance (unevenness) among women.
Women think and work along relational (NOT hierarchical) lines. Women’s collaborative leadership style is dramatically different from men: they share information and involve others in the decision-making process.
Heim/Murphy put it insightfully when they observed that “females do not use conflicts to establish a hierarchy; [instead,] their quarrels revolve around access to resources.”
Think what that means for women striving up the ladder of male-dominated corporations. Women may not enjoy or appreciate that climb as their male counterparts do. The fact that organizations actually ban or discourage affiliations (such as “women in management networks”) may result in women suffering from a sense of loss of relationships in the work environment. In this sterile situation, women have nothing there that contributes to their sense of personal achievement.
Power, on the other hand, is simply the ability to get things done. Power does not exist in a vacuum or in isolation from the individual. Men consider power an end in and of itself, while women consider power more as a means to achieving other goals.
Heim/Murphy describe several types of power: reward power, coercive power, legitimate power, expert power, referent power, and associative power. For women, unlike men, “power flows through their relationships, not from external symbols”.
Women have the “Chip Theory of Power”, somewhat similar to the male concept of “Markers”. But, women strive toward equity (evenness), while men strive toward inequality (unevenness) or personal, competitive advantage. Women try to keep the chips even, while men strive to increase their individual share of the markers. If the chips are uneven, women expect a re-balancing in order to be comfortable.
Thus, when Carly had all the power, women felt uncomfortable with her. When Carly diminished her power by talking about how she, too, felt discrimination, women felt more at ease with her as the power chips were re-balanced.
Self-esteem is the third part of the balancing act -- one’s sense of worth in your own eyes. Self-esteem is the power that one allows one’s own self to have; it is the ability to form an identity and attach a value to it.
Heim/Murphy cite many examples of research showing that, normally, there is a correlation between high self-esteem and high achievement (which can lead to the accrual of power).
However, for many women, “all the perceived power in the world won’t build their self-esteem – they view themselves as unworthy.”
When women perceive their self-esteem is low, the triangle is out of kilter. Women may not be able to change their internal sense of self, to re-establish balance of the triangle, so an alternative is to bring other women of power down to their level. Thus, we see the full array of “sabotage savvy” behavior on the part of uncertain women.
This is the “Power Dead-Even Rule” at play: “an invisible natural law that operates behind the scenes, shapes our relations to other women in our lives, explains the connection among relationships, power and self-esteem”.
When our sense of power, OR our sense of relationships, OR our self-esteem are not enhanced in the interaction with others, women tend to re-balance the triangle through “catty” and destructive behavior that brings others down to our perceived, lower level.
At that point, women are "in the company of women": demonstrating indirect aggression and hurting each other, and ourselves.
Before being ousted by HP, Carly was considered one of the most powerful women in public corporate life (by most men). She used to say that “gender didn’t matter” in her climb to the top rungs of the corporate ladder. Then, in her first speech after the fall, she talked instead about how the boys at AT&T dubbed her a "token bimbo" and how she experienced other prejudices from her rising-star competitive peers at Hewlett-Packard who tried to “diminish and disgrace" her.
There it was, facing me in all its glory: the “Power Dead-Even Rule”. Even Carly Fiorina had to, finally, re-balance the Power – Relationships - Self-Esteem triangle -- to enable women to feel more comfortable with her, more accepting of her as a “powerful woman”, by playing down her importance and by sharing “trouble talk”.
- “Women are more comfortable with a powerful woman [like Carly post-HP] who plays down her importance rather than one who does not.“
And the female reaction to her commencement speech at NCAT was softer, more accepting, more tolerant than was their response to her speech in May 2004 at Simmons College (Boston) where she spoke more assertively, that “gender shouldn’t matter”.
Heim/Murphy describe the phenomenon of “female-to-female conflict”: indirect or covert aggression. Women attack women in such a way as to remain hidden, undetected, in order to avoid retaliation or social condemnation.
Whew! What a scary concept! Think “ambush” and consider the synonyms they use to describe the phenomenon:
- gossip; divulging secrets, spreading rumors, publicly making insinuating or insulting comments, undermining, sabotaging, purposefully snubbing or withdrawing friendship
Heim/Murphy describe a need on the part of women to maintain a balance among the three forces:
Power –- Relationships -- Self-esteem
Power is the external influence one wields in the outside world. Relationships are our connections to other people. Self-esteem is the internal power one feels: the sense of inner strength and self-worth.
Relationships are a keystone for women. “The importance of social interactions in the workplace is the most significant difference between the genders,” according to Heim/Murphy.
Hierarchies are structures for re-enforcing men’s beliefs about themselves and their self-esteem. Hierarchies result from competition: the creation of social structures that are predictable and orderly, and which prevent anarchy among males.
Hierarchies do NOT serve the same needs for women. They do not prevent “anarchy” among women. In fact, the existence of hierarchies may create an environment that fosters “anarchy” or a sense of imbalance (unevenness) among women.
Women think and work along relational (NOT hierarchical) lines. Women’s collaborative leadership style is dramatically different from men: they share information and involve others in the decision-making process.
Heim/Murphy put it insightfully when they observed that “females do not use conflicts to establish a hierarchy; [instead,] their quarrels revolve around access to resources.”
Think what that means for women striving up the ladder of male-dominated corporations. Women may not enjoy or appreciate that climb as their male counterparts do. The fact that organizations actually ban or discourage affiliations (such as “women in management networks”) may result in women suffering from a sense of loss of relationships in the work environment. In this sterile situation, women have nothing there that contributes to their sense of personal achievement.
Power, on the other hand, is simply the ability to get things done. Power does not exist in a vacuum or in isolation from the individual. Men consider power an end in and of itself, while women consider power more as a means to achieving other goals.
Heim/Murphy describe several types of power: reward power, coercive power, legitimate power, expert power, referent power, and associative power. For women, unlike men, “power flows through their relationships, not from external symbols”.
Women have the “Chip Theory of Power”, somewhat similar to the male concept of “Markers”. But, women strive toward equity (evenness), while men strive toward inequality (unevenness) or personal, competitive advantage. Women try to keep the chips even, while men strive to increase their individual share of the markers. If the chips are uneven, women expect a re-balancing in order to be comfortable.
Thus, when Carly had all the power, women felt uncomfortable with her. When Carly diminished her power by talking about how she, too, felt discrimination, women felt more at ease with her as the power chips were re-balanced.
Self-esteem is the third part of the balancing act -- one’s sense of worth in your own eyes. Self-esteem is the power that one allows one’s own self to have; it is the ability to form an identity and attach a value to it.
Heim/Murphy cite many examples of research showing that, normally, there is a correlation between high self-esteem and high achievement (which can lead to the accrual of power).
However, for many women, “all the perceived power in the world won’t build their self-esteem – they view themselves as unworthy.”
- The imposter syndrome: a self-defeating attitude, a feeling that you will be “found out” as unworthy
- A feeling of lack of competence, skill or intelligence (contrary to objective data)
- A sense that one doesn’t deserve the success and the perks
- A fear of one’s inability to repeat past successes; a conviction that previous accomplishments were a fluke
- A belief that success has not come from one’s own efforts or abilities; but rather from fate, luck, timing, charm, or manipulation.
- “When women experience interpersonal discord, they disparage themselves as inadequate – which cuts into their personal self-esteem.”
When women perceive their self-esteem is low, the triangle is out of kilter. Women may not be able to change their internal sense of self, to re-establish balance of the triangle, so an alternative is to bring other women of power down to their level. Thus, we see the full array of “sabotage savvy” behavior on the part of uncertain women.
This is the “Power Dead-Even Rule” at play: “an invisible natural law that operates behind the scenes, shapes our relations to other women in our lives, explains the connection among relationships, power and self-esteem”.
When our sense of power, OR our sense of relationships, OR our self-esteem are not enhanced in the interaction with others, women tend to re-balance the triangle through “catty” and destructive behavior that brings others down to our perceived, lower level.
At that point, women are "in the company of women": demonstrating indirect aggression and hurting each other, and ourselves.
Monday, July 25, 2005
In The Company of Women - Part 2
Why Mentoring Doesn’t Work for Women
I also didn’t believe that was a common phenomenon until I read another recent article written for Women In Technology International, on the subject of “Making Lemonade”. There it was, in black and white:
The price women pay to play in this male corporate hierarchical “game” is expensive:
Some say that women “at the top” don’t mentor up-and-coming younger women because they have their hands full trying to protect themselves from the sabotage of men AND women in the organization. They’re described as having “arrows in their backs.”
Others observe that women “at the top” only mentor women who are significantly worse off than they are: abused women, battered women, women of the street, and other women deserving great pity. By helping only women at the very bottom of the pecking order, women “at the top” are assured of finding only grateful recipients, and never have to face “sabotage savvy” women and the “Power Dead-Even Rule”.
With mentoring relationships involving only men, the key lesson that it never describes a one-way relationship. It is always a mutually-beneficial deal: each party perceives that he will get more than is given.
Mentoring is about power: dominant and subordinate power, in fact. Mentoring is a temporary superior-to-subordinate relationship which, if it is successful, disappears to the benefit and advancement of both participants.
In a guy-to-guy mentor relationship, the senior one believes he will benefit by working with an up-and-coming super star who is dynamic, creative, hard-hitting, gung-ho and who can add pizzazz to the senior's already bright aura. The junior one, for his part, believes he will benefit by his association with the experienced, valued, seasoned, weathered, senior super star.
Both parties come to the relationship with power, not weakness. The senior is seen as a legitimate source of power which can be enhanced by the junior's contributions. The junior is already seen as an emerging power to be co-opted by the senior's counseling.
In too many instances for women, mentoring is perceived as a situation where each party is expected to give up more than she gets. Too often, mentoring among women is a case of weakness and more sacrifice. The woman at the bottom wants “help”, while the woman at the top wants “help”. Both are running on empty. Thus, mentoring ends up just not being worth the effort on a level comparable to the ways it works best for men in corporate life.
Girl Gangs: Creative Collaborations
The one thing that seems to work is when women’s outrage coalesces around something significant enough for women to band together in a creative collaboration and ignore, temporarily, their concerns with an imbalance of power, relationships or self-esteem. In these cases, the inequities that women see on the outside as a common enemy are greater than the inequities or differences they perceive among themselves.
A prime example is how women of science, engineering, and technology banded together to attack Harvard President, Dr. Lawrence Summers, in almost piranha-like fashion. The technique was effective in many respects: it shed a bright light on the pervasive inequities of salary, tenure, promotions, and recruitment; it also helped establish concrete task forces to document shortages of resources; and in the end $50 Million in funds were allocated to promote and attract women to those fields in Harvard.
So, on the one hand, there is the strategy that Heim/Murphy advocate -- to recognize and “obey” the “Power Dead-Even Rule”. Give the Lady Devil her due: play nice as Carly learned and be ready to rebalance the triangle by giving more to the women than you get.
On the other hand, their other strategy is certainly worth thinking about, too. If women could do a really great job of staying focused on the important common enemies or evils that we all face, perhaps we could rise above the “Power Dead-Even Rule”, build better “girl gangs” and use creative collaborations to Build a Better Doll House for us all.
The “Power Dead-Even Rule” (from In the Company of Women by Pat Heim and Susan Murphy) also explains why so few women mentor other up-and-coming women. How many times have young women tried to find mentors among the female power elite only to learn that that attention is not desired?
Heim/Murphy describe this using another phenomenon, “The Queen Bee Syndrome”, where senior women distance themselves from junior women:
- “Part of the success of women at the very top is their ability to convince men that they are not like other women … denying their status as women.”
I also didn’t believe that was a common phenomenon until I read another recent article written for Women In Technology International, on the subject of “Making Lemonade”. There it was, in black and white:
- "Some executive women believe that being a minority in the executive ranks of the IT industry has only helped them stand out among their male peers . . . us[ing] their underrepresented status as a competitive advantage for themselves. They enjoy being in the minority . . . as they tend to stand out more at meetings and are more likely to be remembered." [Dr. Tammie Page, in an article for Women In Technology International entitled, "Making Lemonade: Preparing For and Sustaining Executive Positions"]
The price women pay to play in this male corporate hierarchical “game” is expensive:
- “Women who achieve success in terms of concrete achievement (but NOT “affiliative success”) often feel empty, lonely, and isolated.“
Some say that women “at the top” don’t mentor up-and-coming younger women because they have their hands full trying to protect themselves from the sabotage of men AND women in the organization. They’re described as having “arrows in their backs.”
Others observe that women “at the top” only mentor women who are significantly worse off than they are: abused women, battered women, women of the street, and other women deserving great pity. By helping only women at the very bottom of the pecking order, women “at the top” are assured of finding only grateful recipients, and never have to face “sabotage savvy” women and the “Power Dead-Even Rule”.
With mentoring relationships involving only men, the key lesson that it never describes a one-way relationship. It is always a mutually-beneficial deal: each party perceives that he will get more than is given.
Mentoring is about power: dominant and subordinate power, in fact. Mentoring is a temporary superior-to-subordinate relationship which, if it is successful, disappears to the benefit and advancement of both participants.
In a guy-to-guy mentor relationship, the senior one believes he will benefit by working with an up-and-coming super star who is dynamic, creative, hard-hitting, gung-ho and who can add pizzazz to the senior's already bright aura. The junior one, for his part, believes he will benefit by his association with the experienced, valued, seasoned, weathered, senior super star.
Both parties come to the relationship with power, not weakness. The senior is seen as a legitimate source of power which can be enhanced by the junior's contributions. The junior is already seen as an emerging power to be co-opted by the senior's counseling.
In too many instances for women, mentoring is perceived as a situation where each party is expected to give up more than she gets. Too often, mentoring among women is a case of weakness and more sacrifice. The woman at the bottom wants “help”, while the woman at the top wants “help”. Both are running on empty. Thus, mentoring ends up just not being worth the effort on a level comparable to the ways it works best for men in corporate life.
Girl Gangs: Creative Collaborations
The one thing that seems to work is when women’s outrage coalesces around something significant enough for women to band together in a creative collaboration and ignore, temporarily, their concerns with an imbalance of power, relationships or self-esteem. In these cases, the inequities that women see on the outside as a common enemy are greater than the inequities or differences they perceive among themselves.
A prime example is how women of science, engineering, and technology banded together to attack Harvard President, Dr. Lawrence Summers, in almost piranha-like fashion. The technique was effective in many respects: it shed a bright light on the pervasive inequities of salary, tenure, promotions, and recruitment; it also helped establish concrete task forces to document shortages of resources; and in the end $50 Million in funds were allocated to promote and attract women to those fields in Harvard.
So, on the one hand, there is the strategy that Heim/Murphy advocate -- to recognize and “obey” the “Power Dead-Even Rule”. Give the Lady Devil her due: play nice as Carly learned and be ready to rebalance the triangle by giving more to the women than you get.
On the other hand, their other strategy is certainly worth thinking about, too. If women could do a really great job of staying focused on the important common enemies or evils that we all face, perhaps we could rise above the “Power Dead-Even Rule”, build better “girl gangs” and use creative collaborations to Build a Better Doll House for us all.
Friday, July 15, 2005
What Does 'To Play The Woman Card' Mean?
At a recent venture capital gathering, I took the opportunity to ask the panelists the question, “What share of your overall deal flow comes from women-owned businesses?”
While one venture capitalist reported they’d done 5 such deals, the other 4 panelists indicated they had done no deals with women-owned businesses. Most panelists suggested that the problem was that they RECEIVED very few deal offers from women-owned businesses.
My question was phrased to ask for their insight into what could I do to improve the deal flow of qualified proposals from women-owned businesses. One speaker generously responded with the following advice:
That was good advice under all circumstances, but later -– of course –- I wondered to myself what, exactly, does it mean ‘to play the woman card’. I emailed and called afterwards, seeking clarification. But, I suspect that this is too sensitive a subject even to discuss in private for any business person. So, I have to try to find the answer, by myself.
I suspect that ‘to play the woman card’ means: to try to get special favors or preferences just because one is a woman or just because, historically, women have had a small share of the economic pie.
In another panel setting, where the topic was boards of directors, I asked another authority what he thought it would take to increase the share of women directors. His response was to warn against expecting that any type of quota system would accomplish the objective. To him, I suspect that ‘to play the woman card’ meant trying to get preferential treatment such as the idea suggested by “the black robe” or “the woman robe” on the U.S. Supreme Court.
I asked the head of research at a major executive search firm about their recent survey which showed significant progress in the share of women on boards of directors. Like the venture capitalist, her reply was that very few women actually PURSUE the opportunity of service on public corporate boards of directors. Board nominating committees, today, were very interested in a “diversity” of thinking and representation among their directors. She reported that, in her experience, it has not been easy to find talented, experienced, and educated candidates to fit the bill.
From the Internet, we read about another view of ‘to play the woman card’:
Could it be that women ARE trying ‘to play the woman card’ -– looking for preferences -- rather than doing their homework, doing the basics, doing the hard business of going through the ropes to simply get the job done, get the money, get the business plan considered, stand up and get the grilling from a VC or lender, or try to get on a board of directors?
Are women expecting the business world to change all the rules just to accommodate them? Are women expecting to be able to accomplish the same goals and objectives by taking short-cuts? Getting favors? Through special deals and discounts?
Are women trying for a measure of over-compensation for all of the historic economic past disparities, all at once? Something along the lines of female-reparations?
Let’s say that I have a preference for working within the economic marketplace, and I want to work to create better business deal offerings for business owners who just happen to be women. Let’s say I chose to do so because I see that there is a lot of room for improvement in the number and quality of deals that could be generated as a percentage of the total number of women-owned businesses added to the supply every year. That’s what I see as the economics of the marketplace, not the gender of the marketplace.
Will I be branded as ‘playing the woman card’ because I am interested in promoting this potential segment of the marketplace? What will it take for both of us, men and women in business, to move to the point where we look at the numbers? Are we condemned always to be red-flagged as ‘expecting favoritism’ just because we are talking about the segment of the marketplace that historically has been small and is now growing quickly?
I would have thought that to talk about a strong and growing marketplace would have been of interest to venture capitalists –- if I could work to make deals from that source stronger and more viable.
In my many years of professional experience, I can’t say that either I received benefits or incurred costs due to my gender. I have tried to operate on the premise that “there is a level playing field” -- regardless of whether such a level playing field, in fact, existed. To assume the playing field was fixed against me seemed only to promise failure. I chose otherwise.
So, as I ask the question “What can I do to improve the deal flow of qualified proposals from women-owned businesses?” I mean exactly that -– “What can I do”?
I do not mean to ask “What are YOU doing?” or to ask “What are OTHERS doing?” Or “What will you do to overcome a history of poor performance?”. I certainly do not ask “What quotas, laws, rules, or regulations could be put into place to compel you and others to improve the deal flow?”
I am inquiring, “If I can talk women-owned businesses into building better businesses and better business plans, would you be interested in hearing their presentations?” “If I can teach women-owned businesses to better match their business products and services to your investment criteria, would you be willing to look at their plans?” “If I can talk women-owned businesses into doing a better job of preparing themselves, their management teams, their financials, their market analyses for ‘prime time’, would you be willing to work with me to give them feedback and recommendations?”
Just like anyone else.
While one venture capitalist reported they’d done 5 such deals, the other 4 panelists indicated they had done no deals with women-owned businesses. Most panelists suggested that the problem was that they RECEIVED very few deal offers from women-owned businesses.
My question was phrased to ask for their insight into what could I do to improve the deal flow of qualified proposals from women-owned businesses. One speaker generously responded with the following advice:
- First, don’t try to be anything other than yourself.
Second, don’t try to be a man.
Third, don’t ‘play the woman card’.
That was good advice under all circumstances, but later -– of course –- I wondered to myself what, exactly, does it mean ‘to play the woman card’. I emailed and called afterwards, seeking clarification. But, I suspect that this is too sensitive a subject even to discuss in private for any business person. So, I have to try to find the answer, by myself.
I suspect that ‘to play the woman card’ means: to try to get special favors or preferences just because one is a woman or just because, historically, women have had a small share of the economic pie.
In another panel setting, where the topic was boards of directors, I asked another authority what he thought it would take to increase the share of women directors. His response was to warn against expecting that any type of quota system would accomplish the objective. To him, I suspect that ‘to play the woman card’ meant trying to get preferential treatment such as the idea suggested by “the black robe” or “the woman robe” on the U.S. Supreme Court.
I asked the head of research at a major executive search firm about their recent survey which showed significant progress in the share of women on boards of directors. Like the venture capitalist, her reply was that very few women actually PURSUE the opportunity of service on public corporate boards of directors. Board nominating committees, today, were very interested in a “diversity” of thinking and representation among their directors. She reported that, in her experience, it has not been easy to find talented, experienced, and educated candidates to fit the bill.
From the Internet, we read about another view of ‘to play the woman card’:
“Why reserve seats for women on boards as in buses? “ by S. Muralidharan
“I too have reservations about reservation for women on company boards. And I am no misogynist either. It is one thing to give mandatory representation to women in the political decision-making process. But the idea of reservation for women on boards of companies is [the] height of romanticism.
“If the Government feels that the move will have a sobering effect on the male-dominated boards, I am afraid it is in for disappointment. And if it expects buccaneer entrepreneurs to be less rapacious under the watchful eyes of women, once again its expectation may be belied. It is not even remotely suggested that women are not fit for the rough and tumble of boardroom jousts.
“A woman should make it to the board on her own steam. Else, she may be a part of the board under sufferance. Corporate governance presupposes following of sound business practices — profit maximisation tempered with altruistic concerns. Let not the Government trivialise the concept. The optional regime of giving representation to small shareholders has had no takers so far. “
Could it be that women ARE trying ‘to play the woman card’ -– looking for preferences -- rather than doing their homework, doing the basics, doing the hard business of going through the ropes to simply get the job done, get the money, get the business plan considered, stand up and get the grilling from a VC or lender, or try to get on a board of directors?
Are women expecting the business world to change all the rules just to accommodate them? Are women expecting to be able to accomplish the same goals and objectives by taking short-cuts? Getting favors? Through special deals and discounts?
Are women trying for a measure of over-compensation for all of the historic economic past disparities, all at once? Something along the lines of female-reparations?
Let’s say that I have a preference for working within the economic marketplace, and I want to work to create better business deal offerings for business owners who just happen to be women. Let’s say I chose to do so because I see that there is a lot of room for improvement in the number and quality of deals that could be generated as a percentage of the total number of women-owned businesses added to the supply every year. That’s what I see as the economics of the marketplace, not the gender of the marketplace.
Will I be branded as ‘playing the woman card’ because I am interested in promoting this potential segment of the marketplace? What will it take for both of us, men and women in business, to move to the point where we look at the numbers? Are we condemned always to be red-flagged as ‘expecting favoritism’ just because we are talking about the segment of the marketplace that historically has been small and is now growing quickly?
I would have thought that to talk about a strong and growing marketplace would have been of interest to venture capitalists –- if I could work to make deals from that source stronger and more viable.
In my many years of professional experience, I can’t say that either I received benefits or incurred costs due to my gender. I have tried to operate on the premise that “there is a level playing field” -- regardless of whether such a level playing field, in fact, existed. To assume the playing field was fixed against me seemed only to promise failure. I chose otherwise.
So, as I ask the question “What can I do to improve the deal flow of qualified proposals from women-owned businesses?” I mean exactly that -– “What can I do”?
I do not mean to ask “What are YOU doing?” or to ask “What are OTHERS doing?” Or “What will you do to overcome a history of poor performance?”. I certainly do not ask “What quotas, laws, rules, or regulations could be put into place to compel you and others to improve the deal flow?”
I am inquiring, “If I can talk women-owned businesses into building better businesses and better business plans, would you be interested in hearing their presentations?” “If I can teach women-owned businesses to better match their business products and services to your investment criteria, would you be willing to look at their plans?” “If I can talk women-owned businesses into doing a better job of preparing themselves, their management teams, their financials, their market analyses for ‘prime time’, would you be willing to work with me to give them feedback and recommendations?”
Just like anyone else.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
On Title IX
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
So spoke George Santayana, in his The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905; US (Spanish-born) philosopher (1863 - 1952)
What do you do with those who never even bothered to learn about the past in the first place?
That’s what I felt when I read a recent Wall Street Journal article about a new book on the history of Title IX, the federal legislation that gave women in college and public schools the opportunity to access taxpayer dollars on an equal footing with males. At the end of the article, they quoted Jennifer Capriati, talented U.S. tennis star, on whether she had any inspiring words for President Bush as he considered potential restrictions on Title IX. Her reply:
“I have no idea what Title IX is.”
Today, as I walk by my neighborhood playground each afternoon, I am excited to see hundreds of little girls of all ages playing on the softball and soccer fields. They are fully-garbed in uniforms, shin-guards and head-gear. They’re in the batter’s box, perfectly poised and eyes ahead, ready to knock the on-coming pitch square ahead and over the fence. Today’s young female pitchers use the “windmill pitch” – an underarm fast whirly-bird windup – rather than the over-the-shoulder pitch that was more natural for their brothers.
I marvel at how far we have come from my days, before the passage of the Educational Amendments of 1972 with Title IX, which banned sex discrimination in programs and activities at any school that receives federal taxpayer money.
In that past, there were just 1 or 2 of us girls who even wanted to participate in team sports. We played in our jeans and Keds. Most of us were taught by our brothers who would tell us “Don’t throw like a GIRRRRLLLLL!”. They taught us how to throw the ball with a full wind-up over the shoulder. They taught us not to shy away from the pitch coming full bore across the plate. They taught us to keep our eye on the ball, watching it all the way to the bat. They taught us to time our step into the pitch. They taught us to let the weight of the bat carry itself in one smooth stroke toward and through the ball to the very farthest fence.
Our high school gym teachers taught us the "windmill pitch" much later. Our brothers, too, learned how much more powerful and accurate the “windmill pitch” could be and adopted it in the slow-pitch softball leagues of young adults. But that was much later. Much later.
What I see on the softball and soccer fields of today is a wonderful sight. I see hundreds of young girls learning how to play on a team. They are learning how to cheer for their peers -– how to share the glory. They are learning the rigor and discipline of a position, the precision of batting, the power of pitching, the intricacy of plays, the concepts of strategy, and the beauty of teamwork. They are learning how to have fun and get a little messy in the process. They are learning to deal with victory and defeat -– to “meet Triumph and Disaster and treat those two imposters the same.”
And there they are, again -- our brothers. They’re out there on the field, at the girls’ side, telling them how to “do it right”. These brothers are once again our daughters’ mentors, out on today’s softball and soccer fields. They are teaching them the “rules of the game” once again. They are teaching them how to love sport and everything in it.
So, Jennifer Capriati and those sisters who are not on the playing field helping our brothers do this most important mentoring job –- have you forgotten the past or did you just miss this lesson altogether?
So spoke George Santayana, in his The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905; US (Spanish-born) philosopher (1863 - 1952)
What do you do with those who never even bothered to learn about the past in the first place?
That’s what I felt when I read a recent Wall Street Journal article about a new book on the history of Title IX, the federal legislation that gave women in college and public schools the opportunity to access taxpayer dollars on an equal footing with males. At the end of the article, they quoted Jennifer Capriati, talented U.S. tennis star, on whether she had any inspiring words for President Bush as he considered potential restrictions on Title IX. Her reply:
“I have no idea what Title IX is.”
Today, as I walk by my neighborhood playground each afternoon, I am excited to see hundreds of little girls of all ages playing on the softball and soccer fields. They are fully-garbed in uniforms, shin-guards and head-gear. They’re in the batter’s box, perfectly poised and eyes ahead, ready to knock the on-coming pitch square ahead and over the fence. Today’s young female pitchers use the “windmill pitch” – an underarm fast whirly-bird windup – rather than the over-the-shoulder pitch that was more natural for their brothers.
I marvel at how far we have come from my days, before the passage of the Educational Amendments of 1972 with Title IX, which banned sex discrimination in programs and activities at any school that receives federal taxpayer money.
In that past, there were just 1 or 2 of us girls who even wanted to participate in team sports. We played in our jeans and Keds. Most of us were taught by our brothers who would tell us “Don’t throw like a GIRRRRLLLLL!”. They taught us how to throw the ball with a full wind-up over the shoulder. They taught us not to shy away from the pitch coming full bore across the plate. They taught us to keep our eye on the ball, watching it all the way to the bat. They taught us to time our step into the pitch. They taught us to let the weight of the bat carry itself in one smooth stroke toward and through the ball to the very farthest fence.
Our high school gym teachers taught us the "windmill pitch" much later. Our brothers, too, learned how much more powerful and accurate the “windmill pitch” could be and adopted it in the slow-pitch softball leagues of young adults. But that was much later. Much later.
What I see on the softball and soccer fields of today is a wonderful sight. I see hundreds of young girls learning how to play on a team. They are learning how to cheer for their peers -– how to share the glory. They are learning the rigor and discipline of a position, the precision of batting, the power of pitching, the intricacy of plays, the concepts of strategy, and the beauty of teamwork. They are learning how to have fun and get a little messy in the process. They are learning to deal with victory and defeat -– to “meet Triumph and Disaster and treat those two imposters the same.”
And there they are, again -- our brothers. They’re out there on the field, at the girls’ side, telling them how to “do it right”. These brothers are once again our daughters’ mentors, out on today’s softball and soccer fields. They are teaching them the “rules of the game” once again. They are teaching them how to love sport and everything in it.
So, Jennifer Capriati and those sisters who are not on the playing field helping our brothers do this most important mentoring job –- have you forgotten the past or did you just miss this lesson altogether?
