Thursday, July 30, 2009
Ellen Welty
Kudos to Ellen Welty for her article on the Cure for Waffle-Speak.
Originally printed in Redbook, the article is reprinted in SFGate.com here: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/07/29/hearstmaghealth233706.DTL.
In Are Your Words Holding You Back? Ms. Welty cuts to the chase and critiques some of the most debilitating self-disparaging speaking styles that women need to eliminate from their communications.
"So let’s break that chain, shall we? Read on and learn how to ditch the wimpy-sounding words and phrases that may be holding you back so you can say your piece with confidence and show the world — and, really, yourself — how strong and self-possessed you truly are."
At the article’s end are 8 concrete, specific and doable steps to "break the chain" of "waffling and downplaying your worth. Follow this plan to banish self-defeating talk and put more me-power behind your words."
It is astounding to see such an article in the same magazine that typically blares headlines such as, "how to use your sexuality to manipulate….[whatever!]." Ms. Welty’s advice appears to have been crafted back in September 2007, based on the dates of the comments.
What is sooooo refreshing is to see some sincere "tough love" advice for women. This is one of the few such pieces with the courage to tell young and mature women, alike how they CAN fine-tune their presentation styles and communication techniques and be heard with respect and admiration in today’s marketplace. Ms. Welty herself speaks genuinely and truthfully on a subject too long ignored by women who have hoped they could bring their coy little girl ways into the adult and business world.
As more women follow Ms. Welty’s suggestions, they will become more credible, more interesting, more persuasive, and more likely to succeed. That is exactly what Ms. Welty, herself, accomplished with this article.
Originally printed in Redbook, the article is reprinted in SFGate.com here: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/07/29/hearstmaghealth233706.DTL.
In Are Your Words Holding You Back? Ms. Welty cuts to the chase and critiques some of the most debilitating self-disparaging speaking styles that women need to eliminate from their communications.
"So let’s break that chain, shall we? Read on and learn how to ditch the wimpy-sounding words and phrases that may be holding you back so you can say your piece with confidence and show the world — and, really, yourself — how strong and self-possessed you truly are."
At the article’s end are 8 concrete, specific and doable steps to "break the chain" of "waffling and downplaying your worth. Follow this plan to banish self-defeating talk and put more me-power behind your words."
It is astounding to see such an article in the same magazine that typically blares headlines such as, "how to use your sexuality to manipulate….[whatever!]." Ms. Welty’s advice appears to have been crafted back in September 2007, based on the dates of the comments.
What is sooooo refreshing is to see some sincere "tough love" advice for women. This is one of the few such pieces with the courage to tell young and mature women, alike how they CAN fine-tune their presentation styles and communication techniques and be heard with respect and admiration in today’s marketplace. Ms. Welty herself speaks genuinely and truthfully on a subject too long ignored by women who have hoped they could bring their coy little girl ways into the adult and business world.
As more women follow Ms. Welty’s suggestions, they will become more credible, more interesting, more persuasive, and more likely to succeed. That is exactly what Ms. Welty, herself, accomplished with this article.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Brooksley Born
You never quite know when the time will be right. Ask Brooksley Born who probably is doing more today to change our views and oversight of financial risk and derivative instruments than ever before in her incredible career.
Brooksley Born is a graduate of Stanford University and Law School (’61, JD ’64), and a partner at Arnold & Porter, from which she retired in 2003.
A recent article about her in the Stanford Alumni magazine provides an interesting overview of her background and cases.
"One of seven women in the Class of 1964 at Stanford Law School, she graduated at the top of her class, and was elected president of the law review, the first woman to hold either distinction. She is credited with being the first woman to edit a major American law review."
www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2009/marapr/features/born.html
A recent Washington Post interview with Brooksley Born shows her continuing graciousness.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/25/AR2009052502108.html
She was named by President Bill Clinton as a member of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)in April 1994 and then head of the organization in August 1996 through April 1999.
Her most prominent work there concerned the CFTC’s concept release regarding over the counter derivatives. The press release introducing the Concept Release in May 7, 1998 is located at: www.cftc.gov/opa/press98/opa4142-98.htm.
CFTC Concept Release itself is located at www.cftc.gov/opa/press98/opamntn.htm, providing something like 75 questions that needed to be addressed before undertaking OTC derivatives regulations. Most of these questions remain unanswered even today, eleven years later.
Brooksley Born also gave testimony before a Congressional House committee discussing the pros and cons of different approaches to derivatives regulation in July 1998:
www.cftc.gov/opa/speeches/opaborn-33.htm.
In October 23, 1998, she testified on the impact of technology on the regulation of derivatives markets and lessons from the failure of Long Term Capital Management.
www.cftc.gov/opa/speeches/opaborn-38.htm.
In 2009, she was honored with the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award along with Sheila Bair, Edward M. Kennedy, and Leymah Gbowee along with the Women of Liberia. See:
www.jfklibrary.org/.
Most recently, she was named by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to be one of 10 members of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission headed by Phil Angelides, chartered by Congress to examine the causes and ways to prevent re-occurrence of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. See the WSJ article at:
online.wsj.com/article/SB124767515048346221.html.
The commission was chartered by Congress in Section 5 of The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, or FERA, (Pub.Law 111-21, 123 Stat. 1617, S. 386) signed May 20, 2009. See:
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ21/content-detail.html
The charter of the FCIC provides a shopping list of the possible sources of the recent financial disaster and bailout. Among them, certainly, will be failure to regulate OTC derivatives.
Brooksley Born is a graduate of Stanford University and Law School (’61, JD ’64), and a partner at Arnold & Porter, from which she retired in 2003.
A recent article about her in the Stanford Alumni magazine provides an interesting overview of her background and cases.
"One of seven women in the Class of 1964 at Stanford Law School, she graduated at the top of her class, and was elected president of the law review, the first woman to hold either distinction. She is credited with being the first woman to edit a major American law review."
www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2009/marapr/features/born.html
A recent Washington Post interview with Brooksley Born shows her continuing graciousness.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/25/AR2009052502108.html
She was named by President Bill Clinton as a member of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)in April 1994 and then head of the organization in August 1996 through April 1999.
Her most prominent work there concerned the CFTC’s concept release regarding over the counter derivatives. The press release introducing the Concept Release in May 7, 1998 is located at: www.cftc.gov/opa/press98/opa4142-98.htm.
CFTC Concept Release itself is located at www.cftc.gov/opa/press98/opamntn.htm, providing something like 75 questions that needed to be addressed before undertaking OTC derivatives regulations. Most of these questions remain unanswered even today, eleven years later.
Brooksley Born also gave testimony before a Congressional House committee discussing the pros and cons of different approaches to derivatives regulation in July 1998:
www.cftc.gov/opa/speeches/opaborn-33.htm.
In October 23, 1998, she testified on the impact of technology on the regulation of derivatives markets and lessons from the failure of Long Term Capital Management.
www.cftc.gov/opa/speeches/opaborn-38.htm.
In 2009, she was honored with the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award along with Sheila Bair, Edward M. Kennedy, and Leymah Gbowee along with the Women of Liberia. See:
www.jfklibrary.org/.
Most recently, she was named by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to be one of 10 members of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission headed by Phil Angelides, chartered by Congress to examine the causes and ways to prevent re-occurrence of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. See the WSJ article at:
online.wsj.com/article/SB124767515048346221.html.
The commission was chartered by Congress in Section 5 of The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, or FERA, (Pub.Law 111-21, 123 Stat. 1617, S. 386) signed May 20, 2009. See:
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ21/content-detail.html
The charter of the FCIC provides a shopping list of the possible sources of the recent financial disaster and bailout. Among them, certainly, will be failure to regulate OTC derivatives.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
The Take Away
On July 18, 2009 at the LA Coliseum, we celebrated the 25th anniversary of the Los Angeles Olympics, the XXIII rd international event that was held in 1984. There were sixty Olympians, representing games dating back to the 1950s, and including Mary Lou Rettin, Nadia Comenici, and Anita DeFrantz -– the woman who was responsible for managing the LA84 Foundation over the past two and a half decades. The LA84 Foundation received $93 million at its inception 25 years ago and has invested $185 million in programs helping more than 2 million young people, seeded hundreds of youth athletic programs in schools and communities throughout Southern California. Joanie Benoit, the first woman gold medal winner in the first ever women’s Olympic Marathon, was not able to attend, but sent her congratulations. Four out of 10 IOC Board of Directors are women (including Anita DeFrantz). Stephanie Streeter was named Acting Chief Executive Officer of the United States Olympic Committee on March 5, 2009. Ms. Streeter is an accomplished business executive who excelled during her competitive career in women’s basketball.
With this as a backdrop to the evening, before the event, we were snacking at a table on the Peristyle end of the Coliseum. I happened to meet a young lady who introduced herself by saying to me "You would be bored to hear me describe my job at a software company." I thought to myself, "How can she stand under the lights and the glory of these magnificent women of achievement and so denigrate herself to a total stranger? How have we taught young women today to 'take away' themselves at the very moment they meet a stranger -– one who represents the cleanest possible slate of first impressions?"
Our companions for the evening (two men) exchanged their reasons for attending this marvelous occasion. We listened and reminisced. When the conversation ebbed, I dared say to the young lady, "What persuaded you to think that I would not be interested in you, your job, or your company?" After pulling more from her about her firm, their products, and her position there, it happened that there were significant synergies between my interests and background and her current position.
Whoever taught this young lady to discount herself and her profession, so thoroughly, had harmed her grievously. I can only hope my pushiness and prodding might –- ever so slightly -– counterbalance that training. What if she had met another woman, who understood how to play this "debasement speak," would they stand there commiserating about the horror and tragedy of their gainful employment? I am afraid they would.
Now comes NPR.org with a similar interview with Sonia Sotomayor, where they proudly acclaim that she -– like the young girl at the event -– is scared to death that people might discover she is an imposter. "I am always looking over my shoulder wondering if I measure up."
Dr. Susan Murphy (in the book, co-authored with Pat Heim, In the Company of Women) defines "The Imposter Syndrome" and describes its psychological source. Pauline Rose Clance and Suzanne Imes wrote about the concept in 1978. Interestingly enough, the syndrome has since been shown to occur for an equal number of men. It reflects the disparity that exists when one’s external power EXCEEDS the person’s self-esteem. To remedy the in-stasis, one can increase the self-esteem side of the equation or disperse the perception of power: which is exactly what happens when you imply you are "not measuring up."
This is where it all starts -– in radio, television, newspaper land. Tell me, dearie, about how scary it is to come out from the kitchen, the backroom, the bedroom. Share with us, and Dr. Phil, your deepest, darkest fears and trembling thoughts of failure and misery. Tell Oprah, dear heart, about how you know you are not up to this challenge, that everyone will soon discover that you are a fraud.
Michelle Obama adds her two cents in a commencement address to the next generation of graduates from UC Merced that SHE too feels insecure, scared to speak her mind, and afraid of being "found out."
This is "the take away" -– if I tell you how insecure and scared I am, maybe you won’t attack me or maybe you’ll empathize with me. At least I won’t appear too intimidating to you: maybe you’ll even "like me."
With this as a backdrop to the evening, before the event, we were snacking at a table on the Peristyle end of the Coliseum. I happened to meet a young lady who introduced herself by saying to me "You would be bored to hear me describe my job at a software company." I thought to myself, "How can she stand under the lights and the glory of these magnificent women of achievement and so denigrate herself to a total stranger? How have we taught young women today to 'take away' themselves at the very moment they meet a stranger -– one who represents the cleanest possible slate of first impressions?"
Our companions for the evening (two men) exchanged their reasons for attending this marvelous occasion. We listened and reminisced. When the conversation ebbed, I dared say to the young lady, "What persuaded you to think that I would not be interested in you, your job, or your company?" After pulling more from her about her firm, their products, and her position there, it happened that there were significant synergies between my interests and background and her current position.
Whoever taught this young lady to discount herself and her profession, so thoroughly, had harmed her grievously. I can only hope my pushiness and prodding might –- ever so slightly -– counterbalance that training. What if she had met another woman, who understood how to play this "debasement speak," would they stand there commiserating about the horror and tragedy of their gainful employment? I am afraid they would.
Now comes NPR.org with a similar interview with Sonia Sotomayor, where they proudly acclaim that she -– like the young girl at the event -– is scared to death that people might discover she is an imposter. "I am always looking over my shoulder wondering if I measure up."
Dr. Susan Murphy (in the book, co-authored with Pat Heim, In the Company of Women) defines "The Imposter Syndrome" and describes its psychological source. Pauline Rose Clance and Suzanne Imes wrote about the concept in 1978. Interestingly enough, the syndrome has since been shown to occur for an equal number of men. It reflects the disparity that exists when one’s external power EXCEEDS the person’s self-esteem. To remedy the in-stasis, one can increase the self-esteem side of the equation or disperse the perception of power: which is exactly what happens when you imply you are "not measuring up."
This is where it all starts -– in radio, television, newspaper land. Tell me, dearie, about how scary it is to come out from the kitchen, the backroom, the bedroom. Share with us, and Dr. Phil, your deepest, darkest fears and trembling thoughts of failure and misery. Tell Oprah, dear heart, about how you know you are not up to this challenge, that everyone will soon discover that you are a fraud.
Michelle Obama adds her two cents in a commencement address to the next generation of graduates from UC Merced that SHE too feels insecure, scared to speak her mind, and afraid of being "found out."
This is "the take away" -– if I tell you how insecure and scared I am, maybe you won’t attack me or maybe you’ll empathize with me. At least I won’t appear too intimidating to you: maybe you’ll even "like me."
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Unequivocal Right to Assemble
A crucial item that came up during the due diligence research into Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s background was her membership in a women’s support and advocacy organization, the Belizean Grove, which was formed by women in leadership to counter or to emulate a male bonding entity, the Bohemian Group. The disclosure of this part of her "diverse background" raised questions about her judicial qualifications. Is it appropriate for us to evaluate a person’s ability to serve as a public company shareholder representative based on her choice of associates?
After the initial furor, Judge Sotomayor removed herself from the Belizean Grove’s membership; several males applied to join the group to diversify its membership; and much discussion followed about the pros and cons of Bohemians vs. Belizeans and the wisdom of joining such exclusive groups. The debate soon faded into the blogosphere, but the issue remains -– with particular reference to the SEC’s proposals to expand and enhance disclosure about directors, nominee, and their backgrounds.
How far will the SEC reach? Will it include identification of "interlocking relationships" among directors, director candidates, and director nominees which exist as a result of their exclusive membership in Belizean or Bohemian Grove types of groups? Do shareholders in publicly-held corporations have a "need to know" of the heretofore nonpublic names of members at "a 130 year old elite old boys’ network of former Presidents, businessmen, military, musicians, academics, and non-profit leaders"? If Bohemian and Belizean Grove inter-relationships are pertinent to understanding a candidate’s diversity of background or life experiences, then might we also expect greater public disclosure of a director candidate’s membership in other entities whose affiliations or missions might influence or constrain their independent perspectives? Are women’s organizations willing to meet this new test of transparency?
Will we begin to judge new director candidates by "the friends they keep," disclosing their membership in organizations as an indicator of independence or lack thereof? Will nominating and governance committees be required to identify their sources of information used to identify a slate of new director candidates more specifically than currently required?
The fact that Americans like to join different groups has been an undeniable right of citizenship, a process by which we educate ourselves in self-governance, and a privilege that we associate with freedoms of speech and assembly.
Alexis De Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America that "In no country in the world has the principle of association been more successfully used or applied to a greater multitude of objects than in America. Besides the permanent associations which are established by law under the names of townships, cities, and counties, a vast number of others are formed and maintained by the agency of private individuals."
"The success of a democracy rests in large part on the motion of the people. Their active participation in township government, political and civil associations, jury service, and commerce provides opportunities for the people to learn to govern themselves and participate in a meaningful way in the governing process." (Emphasis added.)
How deep into these associations and membership lists do we want to go in pursuit of those nebulous, undefined things we call "diversity" among our public company directors? And at what point will director candidates simply decide their backgrounds and interests are their own business, not the public’s.
After the initial furor, Judge Sotomayor removed herself from the Belizean Grove’s membership; several males applied to join the group to diversify its membership; and much discussion followed about the pros and cons of Bohemians vs. Belizeans and the wisdom of joining such exclusive groups. The debate soon faded into the blogosphere, but the issue remains -– with particular reference to the SEC’s proposals to expand and enhance disclosure about directors, nominee, and their backgrounds.
How far will the SEC reach? Will it include identification of "interlocking relationships" among directors, director candidates, and director nominees which exist as a result of their exclusive membership in Belizean or Bohemian Grove types of groups? Do shareholders in publicly-held corporations have a "need to know" of the heretofore nonpublic names of members at "a 130 year old elite old boys’ network of former Presidents, businessmen, military, musicians, academics, and non-profit leaders"? If Bohemian and Belizean Grove inter-relationships are pertinent to understanding a candidate’s diversity of background or life experiences, then might we also expect greater public disclosure of a director candidate’s membership in other entities whose affiliations or missions might influence or constrain their independent perspectives? Are women’s organizations willing to meet this new test of transparency?
Will we begin to judge new director candidates by "the friends they keep," disclosing their membership in organizations as an indicator of independence or lack thereof? Will nominating and governance committees be required to identify their sources of information used to identify a slate of new director candidates more specifically than currently required?
The fact that Americans like to join different groups has been an undeniable right of citizenship, a process by which we educate ourselves in self-governance, and a privilege that we associate with freedoms of speech and assembly.
Alexis De Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America that "In no country in the world has the principle of association been more successfully used or applied to a greater multitude of objects than in America. Besides the permanent associations which are established by law under the names of townships, cities, and counties, a vast number of others are formed and maintained by the agency of private individuals."
"The success of a democracy rests in large part on the motion of the people. Their active participation in township government, political and civil associations, jury service, and commerce provides opportunities for the people to learn to govern themselves and participate in a meaningful way in the governing process." (Emphasis added.)
How deep into these associations and membership lists do we want to go in pursuit of those nebulous, undefined things we call "diversity" among our public company directors? And at what point will director candidates simply decide their backgrounds and interests are their own business, not the public’s.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Fishing for Female Directors?
Or just PHISHING?
This is in reply to "Name Withheld," the letter to Susan Pinker (Psychologist: Problem Solving column, Globe and Mail, Toronto, CANADA) July 1, 2009.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/fishing-for-female-directors-try-fresh-waters/article1203043/
If Name Withheld really IS head of the nominating committee for a corporate board, you probably already tried both of Ms. Pinker’s recommendations for finding women candidates with experience in your industry and competent to serve as a corporate director.
I would wager a copy of my book, Outstanding In Their Field: How Women Corporate Directors Succeed, that Name Withheld probably already tapped those "public and non-profit sectors" which have a lot of women, but which represent small percentages of the capabilities and the talent needed to serve on today’s public company boards (8.5% and 5.3% of the experience cited by women who actually do serve on California Fortune 1000 boards, respectively, according to my research).
Since Name’s company is large enough to have a nominating committee and to be concerned about shareholder discussions, you also probably tried to play spin-the-Rolodex of board executive search professionals and discovered that corporate board qualifications require true leadership experience, not simply middle management experience.
Beverly Topping, executive director of the Institute for Corporate Directors (ICD), with 9 chapters throughout Canada, must be pulling her hair out at the idea of a Canadian company writing to a newspaper career search/psychologist for advice on how to find top business leaders capable of guiding a company through its strategic business challenges, past the Scylla and Charybdis of contemporary regulation. The ICD is one of the finest corporate governance programs in North America, providing education, extensive outreach, research, and an extensive database of top (certified) talent for corporate boards.
All of which make me think this be a PHISHING exercise!
But, let’s assume Name is serious about not looking for Ms. Goodbar in the same old places where skirts gather or guys brood. First, the nominating committee needs to assess what are the specific business challenges you need to face with a great board team? What skills, experiences, and capabilities are you currently missing? What are the competency gaps you need to fill for you to address your strategic planning and growth objectives? Where are there women working to solve those kinds of practical, pragmatic business problems?
Look for women who have skills in your business needs and industry. Look to mixed gender professional associations (the bar association, the technology association, the accounting associations and boards) where women are collaborating to address these business challenges with male team members.
Look for women who have added value to their own professional skills through investment in their education, experience and capabilities beyond university levels.
Look for women who have graduate degrees and executive educations in subject fields relevant to your demands. Look for evidence that they have poured their own time and money into developing their skills.
Look for women who have built real business entities, maybe a P&L center within a corporation or maybe an angel, venture, or investment fund. Have they put any of their own money at risk, such that they would know what your business is experiencing by putting your money at risk? Look for women who have built a profitable entrepreneurial business, themselves: growing the business by team-building and generating returns on investment just like you.
Look for women who know how to build collaborative business teams, pay employees for their productivity and for their ability to solve business problems creatively. Look for women at the very top of their professional careers.
The challenge is to find women who are in business corporations and who work daily with the reality that business may not be perfect, but it is the source of salaries, taxes, healthcare, retirement, and investment in the future. The challenge is to find women who are able, ready, and willing to lead through governance in today’s tougher, more regulated public company setting.
If Name wants "just anyone in a skirt," there are plenty of places to find lots and lots of women. But, if Name is serious, then your board will not be satisfied until it finds women who are "outstanding in their field," which is, truly and after all, the only way women corporate directors succeed.
This is in reply to "Name Withheld," the letter to Susan Pinker (Psychologist: Problem Solving column, Globe and Mail, Toronto, CANADA) July 1, 2009.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/fishing-for-female-directors-try-fresh-waters/article1203043/
If Name Withheld really IS head of the nominating committee for a corporate board, you probably already tried both of Ms. Pinker’s recommendations for finding women candidates with experience in your industry and competent to serve as a corporate director.
I would wager a copy of my book, Outstanding In Their Field: How Women Corporate Directors Succeed, that Name Withheld probably already tapped those "public and non-profit sectors" which have a lot of women, but which represent small percentages of the capabilities and the talent needed to serve on today’s public company boards (8.5% and 5.3% of the experience cited by women who actually do serve on California Fortune 1000 boards, respectively, according to my research).
Since Name’s company is large enough to have a nominating committee and to be concerned about shareholder discussions, you also probably tried to play spin-the-Rolodex of board executive search professionals and discovered that corporate board qualifications require true leadership experience, not simply middle management experience.
Beverly Topping, executive director of the Institute for Corporate Directors (ICD), with 9 chapters throughout Canada, must be pulling her hair out at the idea of a Canadian company writing to a newspaper career search/psychologist for advice on how to find top business leaders capable of guiding a company through its strategic business challenges, past the Scylla and Charybdis of contemporary regulation. The ICD is one of the finest corporate governance programs in North America, providing education, extensive outreach, research, and an extensive database of top (certified) talent for corporate boards.
All of which make me think this be a PHISHING exercise!
But, let’s assume Name is serious about not looking for Ms. Goodbar in the same old places where skirts gather or guys brood. First, the nominating committee needs to assess what are the specific business challenges you need to face with a great board team? What skills, experiences, and capabilities are you currently missing? What are the competency gaps you need to fill for you to address your strategic planning and growth objectives? Where are there women working to solve those kinds of practical, pragmatic business problems?
Look for women who have skills in your business needs and industry. Look to mixed gender professional associations (the bar association, the technology association, the accounting associations and boards) where women are collaborating to address these business challenges with male team members.
Look for women who have added value to their own professional skills through investment in their education, experience and capabilities beyond university levels.
Look for women who have graduate degrees and executive educations in subject fields relevant to your demands. Look for evidence that they have poured their own time and money into developing their skills.
Look for women who have built real business entities, maybe a P&L center within a corporation or maybe an angel, venture, or investment fund. Have they put any of their own money at risk, such that they would know what your business is experiencing by putting your money at risk? Look for women who have built a profitable entrepreneurial business, themselves: growing the business by team-building and generating returns on investment just like you.
Look for women who know how to build collaborative business teams, pay employees for their productivity and for their ability to solve business problems creatively. Look for women at the very top of their professional careers.
The challenge is to find women who are in business corporations and who work daily with the reality that business may not be perfect, but it is the source of salaries, taxes, healthcare, retirement, and investment in the future. The challenge is to find women who are able, ready, and willing to lead through governance in today’s tougher, more regulated public company setting.
If Name wants "just anyone in a skirt," there are plenty of places to find lots and lots of women. But, if Name is serious, then your board will not be satisfied until it finds women who are "outstanding in their field," which is, truly and after all, the only way women corporate directors succeed.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Social Networking
Business clients are asking me whether they should sign up for LinkedIn, MySpace, or FaceBook social networking tools. And what about Twitter, they all ask? Are these really jokes from Martians or do social networking tools have real value? What are they, why would someone use them, and who actually benefits?
Some adults sign onto these tools because they want to be seen as "in the know" and as a cool person who hangs around cool people. Others sign on because they’ve read about the "benefits" of social networks.
Benefits are what social network marketing professionals advice and recommendations on the subject of "best practices" regarding the use of these tools. Here are some of their insights.
1. These are "rainmaking tools:" if seeded properly, business comments placed online in one of these locations will generate cascades of customer links and tweets as if you were in an Information Monsoon!
2. They enable you "to pinpoint people" among those you DO know who belong in the networks of people you DON’T belong in.
3. They enable you to hone in on contacts with "six degrees of separation" from high rollers: the people you really want to contact.
LMF (LinkedIn, MySpace, and FaceBook) actually are web-based tools for people who cannot afford (or choose not to pay for) a web site (including domain, hosting, design and development or maintenance). They are for people who do not know how (or choose not) to blog, even on a free blogger site. They would rather present themselves using a tool that is generally reminiscent of their high school yearbook, pictures and all, buddy lists and all.
To productively mine this treasure trove, social network marketing mavens advise you to "put a lot of information on your profile." In other worlds, upload your entire life story and resume. Don’t bother to structure, edit, or focus your information to specific interests or targets because EVERYTHING in your life should be interesting to EVERYBODY. Just do a core-dump to cast the widest possible net to any and all random contacts. Specific clients with specific interest can do all the work necessary to plow through your information. Or not.
Choose "action-oriented" and "searchable" worlds to include in your profile. Any mention of sex, JLO, Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, or Beyoncé should garner you the attention you require. If not, the usual addition of phrases containing the word Viagra and the causative anatomical reference should suffice.
Add new projects (if you have any time to actually DO any work).
Customize your profile with a picture of yourself.
Spread your name copiously throughout the page(s).
Update frequently: This is where Twitter training comes in handy: allowing you to add random thoughts of 140 characters infinitely, although meaninglessly. Occasionally, mindlessly.
To spend your last remaining available hours maintaining your LMF site:
-- Network like crazy! Carefully select contacts based on two motivating factors:
(1) Initiate contacts only to prospects with a high probability of connecting you to THEIR Rolodex of high value clients.
(2) Accept into your network only high value contacts who have a high probability of connecting YOU to other high rollers.
Clearly, networks in LMF are "high parasitic" rather than nutritional inter-communication networks. Think about it: if really connected people wanted you to know you, wouldn’t you think they’d already know you? Why would really connected people be motivated to share their hard-earned connections with people they didn’t know, trust, and value?
-- Group! Join clusters of people who follow a subject area. Form groups or join groups based on the following criteria:
(1) Join groups to show that you have commitment and dedication to a niche, topic or expertise.
(2) Start up new groups to demonstrate you credibility in a niche, topic or expertise.
Hopefully, you actually have some experience or intelligence to justify your group membership.
-- Share! Be available to anyone. Give away your hard-earned, valuable expertise. Donate answers to every question posed by anyone (in your exclusive group or network) in your field of expertise.
By hunting down cliques (oops, I mean groups and networks), and giving away your knowledge and expertise for free, you will fuel your competition, devalue the work you actually have invested time and money acquiring, and enable every Lookie-Loo and Joiner to consume copious quantities of the last remaining hours of your life.
But, the social network marketing denizens warn you, be sure to preserve and protect your privacy and valuable information! Adjust your profile settings to exclude crazies and strangers. Although, realistically, once you’ve put all your private data out there on the ‘Net, you’ve pretty much lost all control of your identity.
They also tell you to "play nice!" If you’re not a lawyer or an accountant, don’t pretend to give expert advice in those areas. Perhaps they should also mention that if you’re only a marketing major, be sure you don’t offer technical advice in how to manage information technology and web resources.
Somehow, we’ve lost sight of some essential business concepts. "Customer creation" is the core of business transactions. A business begins by identifying a product or service or expertise which it believes it can deliver and which will provide value to the marketplace. Someone else, the customer, is the one with a need sufficiently strong and developed such that the latter will reach into her pocket for money and compensate the former for value received.
When the customer has a need that is sufficiently strong and developed, she goes looking. She will ask trusted associates to make specific recommendations from which she can choose whom to contact to negotiate further. She does not spend a lifetime gathering random possible lists of all possible products or services -– in advance –- on the off chance that someday, sometime, somewhere she might possibly need that expertise. There are yellow pages, Google, and Craig’s or Amy’s lists that handle specific queries in their appropriate time and place.
Why would a customer ever need to "belong" to a group, network, or clique as a prerequisite for making an intelligent buyer product or service choice? It’s time to pop this over-hyped marketing bubble. The sooner, the better because business has some real problems it needs to solve. And you’ve got real work you need to do.
Some adults sign onto these tools because they want to be seen as "in the know" and as a cool person who hangs around cool people. Others sign on because they’ve read about the "benefits" of social networks.
Benefits are what social network marketing professionals advice and recommendations on the subject of "best practices" regarding the use of these tools. Here are some of their insights.
1. These are "rainmaking tools:" if seeded properly, business comments placed online in one of these locations will generate cascades of customer links and tweets as if you were in an Information Monsoon!
2. They enable you "to pinpoint people" among those you DO know who belong in the networks of people you DON’T belong in.
3. They enable you to hone in on contacts with "six degrees of separation" from high rollers: the people you really want to contact.
LMF (LinkedIn, MySpace, and FaceBook) actually are web-based tools for people who cannot afford (or choose not to pay for) a web site (including domain, hosting, design and development or maintenance). They are for people who do not know how (or choose not) to blog, even on a free blogger site. They would rather present themselves using a tool that is generally reminiscent of their high school yearbook, pictures and all, buddy lists and all.
To productively mine this treasure trove, social network marketing mavens advise you to "put a lot of information on your profile." In other worlds, upload your entire life story and resume. Don’t bother to structure, edit, or focus your information to specific interests or targets because EVERYTHING in your life should be interesting to EVERYBODY. Just do a core-dump to cast the widest possible net to any and all random contacts. Specific clients with specific interest can do all the work necessary to plow through your information. Or not.
Choose "action-oriented" and "searchable" worlds to include in your profile. Any mention of sex, JLO, Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, or Beyoncé should garner you the attention you require. If not, the usual addition of phrases containing the word Viagra and the causative anatomical reference should suffice.
Add new projects (if you have any time to actually DO any work).
Customize your profile with a picture of yourself.
Spread your name copiously throughout the page(s).
Update frequently: This is where Twitter training comes in handy: allowing you to add random thoughts of 140 characters infinitely, although meaninglessly. Occasionally, mindlessly.
To spend your last remaining available hours maintaining your LMF site:
-- Network like crazy! Carefully select contacts based on two motivating factors:
(1) Initiate contacts only to prospects with a high probability of connecting you to THEIR Rolodex of high value clients.
(2) Accept into your network only high value contacts who have a high probability of connecting YOU to other high rollers.
Clearly, networks in LMF are "high parasitic" rather than nutritional inter-communication networks. Think about it: if really connected people wanted you to know you, wouldn’t you think they’d already know you? Why would really connected people be motivated to share their hard-earned connections with people they didn’t know, trust, and value?
-- Group! Join clusters of people who follow a subject area. Form groups or join groups based on the following criteria:
(1) Join groups to show that you have commitment and dedication to a niche, topic or expertise.
(2) Start up new groups to demonstrate you credibility in a niche, topic or expertise.
Hopefully, you actually have some experience or intelligence to justify your group membership.
-- Share! Be available to anyone. Give away your hard-earned, valuable expertise. Donate answers to every question posed by anyone (in your exclusive group or network) in your field of expertise.
By hunting down cliques (oops, I mean groups and networks), and giving away your knowledge and expertise for free, you will fuel your competition, devalue the work you actually have invested time and money acquiring, and enable every Lookie-Loo and Joiner to consume copious quantities of the last remaining hours of your life.
But, the social network marketing denizens warn you, be sure to preserve and protect your privacy and valuable information! Adjust your profile settings to exclude crazies and strangers. Although, realistically, once you’ve put all your private data out there on the ‘Net, you’ve pretty much lost all control of your identity.
They also tell you to "play nice!" If you’re not a lawyer or an accountant, don’t pretend to give expert advice in those areas. Perhaps they should also mention that if you’re only a marketing major, be sure you don’t offer technical advice in how to manage information technology and web resources.
Somehow, we’ve lost sight of some essential business concepts. "Customer creation" is the core of business transactions. A business begins by identifying a product or service or expertise which it believes it can deliver and which will provide value to the marketplace. Someone else, the customer, is the one with a need sufficiently strong and developed such that the latter will reach into her pocket for money and compensate the former for value received.
When the customer has a need that is sufficiently strong and developed, she goes looking. She will ask trusted associates to make specific recommendations from which she can choose whom to contact to negotiate further. She does not spend a lifetime gathering random possible lists of all possible products or services -– in advance –- on the off chance that someday, sometime, somewhere she might possibly need that expertise. There are yellow pages, Google, and Craig’s or Amy’s lists that handle specific queries in their appropriate time and place.
Why would a customer ever need to "belong" to a group, network, or clique as a prerequisite for making an intelligent buyer product or service choice? It’s time to pop this over-hyped marketing bubble. The sooner, the better because business has some real problems it needs to solve. And you’ve got real work you need to do.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Neuro-Science in Financial Advice
The latest issue of my financial advisor’s magazine had an article telling me to NOT listen to the messages from my inner reflexive brain, that limbic system portion which manipulates our instinctive, impulsive or reactive behaviors. It's "the bad brain" that animalistic inner brain, driven as it is by hormones, that rushes (mindlessly) toward rewards, over-reacts to risks, and is hyper-aware of change. That limbic system persuaded all my friends to dive into interest-only mortgages on MacMansions priced beyond their wildest dreams. Investments based on the inner guy’s messages will produce emotional investment -– bound to fail.
The neuro-scientific financial advisor suggested I rely instead upon the messages from the prefrontal cortex, the area of the brain that regulates conscious choice, thoughtful and methodical behaviors. The authority advised I use the rational outer brain which is driven by logic and enlightened by education and informed experiences. Investment decision-making based on the outer guy’s messages will improve the odds of profitable returns.
But, then the rest of the magazine’s articles are designed to excite that inner-idiot! One article says, "Be on the look out for companies tied to Obama’s short term programs." The next one advises: "Invest with an acute awareness of the changing signs of inflation." The third suggests, "Restructure your retirement portfolio, NOW!" I can just feel my limbic system surge with "fight or flight" impulses.
It used to be that consumer goods marketing people were the only "hidden persuaders" of whom we needed to be wary. Now, neuro-scientists are going after Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Foundation grants to delve deeply into our psyches in search of the Pavlovian triggers and buttons they can push to generate our lap-a-dog reactions. Greed, fear, and the promise of adrenalin-exciting payoffs are being used by financial wizards to incent us once again to bounce from annuities to bonds, back to currencies or EFTs, into long term Treasuries or short-term TIPS. It’s all packaged in 5 easy steps to financial security. Just read one more article, and call us at 1-800-Trust-Us.
The neuro-scientific financial advisor suggested I rely instead upon the messages from the prefrontal cortex, the area of the brain that regulates conscious choice, thoughtful and methodical behaviors. The authority advised I use the rational outer brain which is driven by logic and enlightened by education and informed experiences. Investment decision-making based on the outer guy’s messages will improve the odds of profitable returns.
But, then the rest of the magazine’s articles are designed to excite that inner-idiot! One article says, "Be on the look out for companies tied to Obama’s short term programs." The next one advises: "Invest with an acute awareness of the changing signs of inflation." The third suggests, "Restructure your retirement portfolio, NOW!" I can just feel my limbic system surge with "fight or flight" impulses.
It used to be that consumer goods marketing people were the only "hidden persuaders" of whom we needed to be wary. Now, neuro-scientists are going after Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Foundation grants to delve deeply into our psyches in search of the Pavlovian triggers and buttons they can push to generate our lap-a-dog reactions. Greed, fear, and the promise of adrenalin-exciting payoffs are being used by financial wizards to incent us once again to bounce from annuities to bonds, back to currencies or EFTs, into long term Treasuries or short-term TIPS. It’s all packaged in 5 easy steps to financial security. Just read one more article, and call us at 1-800-Trust-Us.
