The Emerge model works. In just ten months, the Emerge Oregon Executive Director Kathryn Firestone and the Board of Directors, led by Board Chair Elisa Dozono have put together a movement. A "Who's Who" in Oregon politics including Secretary of State Kate Brown, Speaker of the House Dave Hunt and Majority Leader Mary Nolan called Emerge Oregon "a game-changer for Oregon" at the kick-off cocktail party on Saturday.
A 2009 graduate of the program, Joelle Davis, who is running for the Oregon state legislator brought down the house with her commanding passion. I was the closer for the event and in my appeal for donations, I asked for money to prevent another Martha Coakley. The audience got it (along with this video that was played). We had a fat four inch stack of checks at the end of the evening.
Earlier in the day, I did the public speaking training for the new Emerge Oregon program members and my first reaction was "Good thing I didn't to apply to the program amongst these women, because I'm not sure I'd have been admitted." And that thought fills me with glee!
Hats off to the Emerge Board for using their birthdays as fundraising goals, eg, Elisa Dozono is raising $40,000 before her 40th birthday and Jane Hill is raising $5,000 before her daughter's 5th birthday.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Robert Reich Appraises Obama's First Year At Emerge Fundraiser
Here's a photo of me introducing Carla Marinucci and Robert Reich. Ms. Marinucci interviewed Professor Reich at a fundraiser for Emerge America last night at Joanna Rees and John Hamm's home (thank you!). Professor Reich suggested that one of Obama's flaws was that he has an "indignity" deficit. He noted that past politicians including Teddy Kennedy and FDR used indignation effectively to wield power. Without indignation, Obama (along with Geithner and Summers) had a tin ear with regards to the bank bailout. He also cautioned against growing cries for populism, and Obama's call for a budget freeze. He noted that Keynes needs to be exhumed! He also emphasized Williams Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech brand of populism: building democracy and the economy with the masses.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
The Accidental Entrepeneurs
Businessweek's cover story "The Disposable Worker" describes a longstanding shift of the fixed costs of labor from companies to individuals. Employers increasingly value flexibility and the ability to tie their labor costs to market conditions. This means a significant shift from expensive permanent employees with benefits to part-time contractors with no benefits, retirement, vacation or job security.
This shift may partially explain the increased malaise in the America workforce. The Jan 5 Conference Board survey stood at the lowest level of job satisfaction in 22 years - only 45% of workers were satisfied with their work. Ouch! Do you know what percent of your employees are fully engaged?
Individuals will need a more entrepeneurial view of their career. And, I'm not just talking about "professional" workers. They should be prepared to market themselves on an ongoing basis and invest in their leadership skills so that they are more effective when they have work assignments. Companies will also need to invest in keeping the morale of their remaining "permanent" employees high.
This shift may partially explain the increased malaise in the America workforce. The Jan 5 Conference Board survey stood at the lowest level of job satisfaction in 22 years - only 45% of workers were satisfied with their work. Ouch! Do you know what percent of your employees are fully engaged?
Individuals will need a more entrepeneurial view of their career. And, I'm not just talking about "professional" workers. They should be prepared to market themselves on an ongoing basis and invest in their leadership skills so that they are more effective when they have work assignments. Companies will also need to invest in keeping the morale of their remaining "permanent" employees high.
Monday, November 30, 2009
The Future of Work: Millenials Will Lead the Way
If science allows us to live indefinitely within our lifetime, as a biotech entrepeneur recently suggested to me, most people will also need to work indefinitely. Instead of a 20, 30, or 40-year career, we could see 60, 80, 100-year long work lives. Even those who create a nest egg may want the continued meaning derived from productive work.
Generation Y, or "the Millenials", is already preparing itself for this new world. On some level, Millenials already know they will work longer than their parent's generation because they realize that Social Security will not be around for them. And, perhaps because they know they will work for a loooong time, they realize they will have to enjoy work and integrate work into their lives. They value flexibility and happiness at work over career ladders, job security and a focus on income. This contrasts with Baby Boomers, who are accustomed to a traditional formula of hard work and acceptance of hierarchy for high pay.
This new flexible work world is already upon us. I’ve seen an estimate that 25% of professionals currently work in some sort of flexible or consulting arrangement. At a recent Georgetown Tech Alliance gathering at Google, panelists from Elance, Flexperience and LiveOps estimated that 50% of professional positions will be flexible positions within 10 years.
In a shrinking job market with longer work lives, those with a more entrepeneurial spirit and flexible focus will excel.
Generation Y, or "the Millenials", is already preparing itself for this new world. On some level, Millenials already know they will work longer than their parent's generation because they realize that Social Security will not be around for them. And, perhaps because they know they will work for a loooong time, they realize they will have to enjoy work and integrate work into their lives. They value flexibility and happiness at work over career ladders, job security and a focus on income. This contrasts with Baby Boomers, who are accustomed to a traditional formula of hard work and acceptance of hierarchy for high pay.
This new flexible work world is already upon us. I’ve seen an estimate that 25% of professionals currently work in some sort of flexible or consulting arrangement. At a recent Georgetown Tech Alliance gathering at Google, panelists from Elance, Flexperience and LiveOps estimated that 50% of professional positions will be flexible positions within 10 years.
In a shrinking job market with longer work lives, those with a more entrepeneurial spirit and flexible focus will excel.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Bar Mitzvah as Leadership Development
I attended my first bar mitzvah this weekend and was struck by the extent of its leadership lessons. My nephew, Nathaniel who made his bar mitzvah, was on the spot in front of his congregation of 80 people for 2 1/2 hours. He shared the podium with the ever-encouraging and risk-taking rabbi. With her guidance, he led chants, read Hebrew script aloud, welcomed guests to the front. Nathaniel even gave his own insightful and humorous speech tying together the meaning of the Torah section that he had read and one of the chants. After awhile, Nathaniel looked completely relaxed and I thought to myself, "Wow, he's been bored into leadership." What a brilliant strategy!
My confirmation in the Catholic church was a whir of white dresses and curtsys. I remember little about it. My nephew will be building on the skills he learned for the rest of his life.
My confirmation in the Catholic church was a whir of white dresses and curtsys. I remember little about it. My nephew will be building on the skills he learned for the rest of his life.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Finding Hope in Dirty Politics
My response to the Arizona Republic article "Phoenix council-seat battle goes to bitter end":
In your article, “Phoenix council-seat battle goes to bitter end”, you write “The councilman (Sal DiCiccio) fired his own salvo, urging the IRS to investigate Kennedy's 501(c)(4) non-profit Emerge Arizona: Women Leaders for a Democratic Future. Emerge Arizona, he argued, benefits only those who pledge support for the Democratic Party and its candidates.”
Either Sal doesn’t know what a 501(c)(4) is or he is exploiting the eye-glazing tax code to muddy the waters for voters. A 501(c)(3) is a traditional non-profit doing good things, like the American Red Cross or the YMCA. When you make a donation, you get a tax deduction. Then, there are 501(c)(4) organizations, like Emerge Arizona, and its Republican counterpart, Winning Women. Donors to these group do not get a tax deduction and these groups have “an unlimited ability to lobby for legislation and the ability to participate in political campaigns and elections”, according to the IRS website. All of Emerge Arizona’s activities are well within the IRS definition.
The US is 84th in the world in women’s representation at the federal level. It is groups like Emerge Arizona that are giving women the skills and networks that they need to run for office.
Dana Kennedy is Emerge Arizona’s part-time Executive Director. In her role of training other Democratic women, Dana is tireless, resourceful and intensely committed. These are the same qualities that Dana brought to her race for City Council.
The incumbent took a conventional approach to funding his campaign. He accepted donations from developers who explicitly have issues currently before the City Council. He also has personal financial interests in matters before the council.
By contrast, I saw Dana reject a campaign contribution from someone who is suing the City of Phoenix on behalf of a client, though this issue would not confront the City Council itself. Given that Dana chose to set the highest standard for her campaign, with the ideal of removing donations that can cloud a public servant’s judgment, I find it ironic that the incumbent would attack her integrity. My hope is that we have more candidates like Dana Kennedy, whose idealism, commitment and integrity will make the political process better.
In your article, “Phoenix council-seat battle goes to bitter end”, you write “The councilman (Sal DiCiccio) fired his own salvo, urging the IRS to investigate Kennedy's 501(c)(4) non-profit Emerge Arizona: Women Leaders for a Democratic Future. Emerge Arizona, he argued, benefits only those who pledge support for the Democratic Party and its candidates.”
Either Sal doesn’t know what a 501(c)(4) is or he is exploiting the eye-glazing tax code to muddy the waters for voters. A 501(c)(3) is a traditional non-profit doing good things, like the American Red Cross or the YMCA. When you make a donation, you get a tax deduction. Then, there are 501(c)(4) organizations, like Emerge Arizona, and its Republican counterpart, Winning Women. Donors to these group do not get a tax deduction and these groups have “an unlimited ability to lobby for legislation and the ability to participate in political campaigns and elections”, according to the IRS website. All of Emerge Arizona’s activities are well within the IRS definition.
The US is 84th in the world in women’s representation at the federal level. It is groups like Emerge Arizona that are giving women the skills and networks that they need to run for office.
Dana Kennedy is Emerge Arizona’s part-time Executive Director. In her role of training other Democratic women, Dana is tireless, resourceful and intensely committed. These are the same qualities that Dana brought to her race for City Council.
The incumbent took a conventional approach to funding his campaign. He accepted donations from developers who explicitly have issues currently before the City Council. He also has personal financial interests in matters before the council.
By contrast, I saw Dana reject a campaign contribution from someone who is suing the City of Phoenix on behalf of a client, though this issue would not confront the City Council itself. Given that Dana chose to set the highest standard for her campaign, with the ideal of removing donations that can cloud a public servant’s judgment, I find it ironic that the incumbent would attack her integrity. My hope is that we have more candidates like Dana Kennedy, whose idealism, commitment and integrity will make the political process better.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Top Picks for Women's Leadership Books
My favorite books about women's leadership have one thing in common: I almost didn't read them. Their titles did not reflect the full scope of the books and I was interested in broader themes and research. I am glad I took a closer look and highly recommend the following books:
"The Female Brain" by Louann Brizendine, MD
I loved this book because it describes men and women's brains and escribes the the brain's gendered physiological and hormonal differences and how these show up in relationships and the workplace. Fascinating and enlightening.
"Off-Ramps and On-Ramps" by Sylvia Ann Hewlett
This book is about more than women's transitions in and out of the workforce as the title suggests. It draws on decades of research and suggests that women have a huge appetite for rewarding careers and that they leave these careers in childbearing years, less because they want to stay home with children, than because the workplace does not reward women in ways that matter to them. Women emphasize the values of connection, flexibility, and recognition over money. Hewlett also links gender diversity to bottom-line results.
"Through the Labyrinth" by Eagly/Carli
The Labyrinth is Eagly and Carli's replacement metaphor for the glass ceiling. They argue that the most successful leaders have an androgynous balance of traits, gregariousness, positive initiative and assertion, social skills, intelligence, integrity and the ability to persuade, inspire and motivate others. In the 21st century, leaders that are too masculine or feminine are at a disadvantage.
"Why Women Mean Business" by Avivah Wittenberg-Cox and Alison Maitland
The authors make a comprehensive business case, and not a gender case, for using women's leadership to increase economic growth. They show how businesses can be more successful by drawing on the complementary strengths of men and women. This title is less known in the US as the author's are British and their focus is Europe and the US.
I hust picked up Joanna Barsh's "How Remarkable Women Lead". This will likely round out my top 5 list.
"The Female Brain" by Louann Brizendine, MD
I loved this book because it describes men and women's brains and escribes the the brain's gendered physiological and hormonal differences and how these show up in relationships and the workplace. Fascinating and enlightening.
"Off-Ramps and On-Ramps" by Sylvia Ann Hewlett
This book is about more than women's transitions in and out of the workforce as the title suggests. It draws on decades of research and suggests that women have a huge appetite for rewarding careers and that they leave these careers in childbearing years, less because they want to stay home with children, than because the workplace does not reward women in ways that matter to them. Women emphasize the values of connection, flexibility, and recognition over money. Hewlett also links gender diversity to bottom-line results.
"Through the Labyrinth" by Eagly/Carli
The Labyrinth is Eagly and Carli's replacement metaphor for the glass ceiling. They argue that the most successful leaders have an androgynous balance of traits, gregariousness, positive initiative and assertion, social skills, intelligence, integrity and the ability to persuade, inspire and motivate others. In the 21st century, leaders that are too masculine or feminine are at a disadvantage.
"Why Women Mean Business" by Avivah Wittenberg-Cox and Alison Maitland
The authors make a comprehensive business case, and not a gender case, for using women's leadership to increase economic growth. They show how businesses can be more successful by drawing on the complementary strengths of men and women. This title is less known in the US as the author's are British and their focus is Europe and the US.
I hust picked up Joanna Barsh's "How Remarkable Women Lead". This will likely round out my top 5 list.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Guilt-Free Schadenfreude
Dana Kennedy has been running a squeaky clean campaign for Phoenix City Council, rejecting donations from people who might, in the future, have a matter before the City Council. By contrast, her incumbent opponent, Sal, readily accepts donations from real estate developers who have matters currently in front of the City Council. Perfectly legal, and business as usual.
Yesterday, the Phoenix New Times exposed that Sal has taken his self-interests a step further. He has been working with a committee towards a freeway extension that directly benefits two large parcels that he leases, without revealing his financial stakes. Oops.
The odd thing is that there are no laws in Phoenix or even much public scorn for public officials working towards their own financial interests - as long as they are transparent. Sal's donations from local developers shows that Saul doesn't see a problem with members of the public paying for politicians to look kindly on their projects. So, why should it be a problem for himself? What's good for the gander isn't good for the goose?
Yesterday, the Phoenix New Times exposed that Sal has taken his self-interests a step further. He has been working with a committee towards a freeway extension that directly benefits two large parcels that he leases, without revealing his financial stakes. Oops.
The odd thing is that there are no laws in Phoenix or even much public scorn for public officials working towards their own financial interests - as long as they are transparent. Sal's donations from local developers shows that Saul doesn't see a problem with members of the public paying for politicians to look kindly on their projects. So, why should it be a problem for himself? What's good for the gander isn't good for the goose?
Monday, October 12, 2009
Leadership Training ROI
A recent study shows that companies with greater investment in leadership and sales training have higher stock prices the following year. At my Vistage meeting last week, our presenter, Dan Barnett made the case that every company must have a a single "Make or Break" strategy that drives the company. Jack Welch's make-or-break at GE was leadership development. Welch was personally involved in every aspecte of Leadership development and training, including building GE's training facility, building the leadership curriculum and teaching leadership classes every year. He visited employees all over the company and his number one question was "What are you doing to develop your leaders?", both one and two levels down. Jack Welch's singular focus on on leadership development resulted in a valuation increase from $14billion to $450 billion, the largest increase on record. Most organizations can do a lot more for their growth with more leadership training.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Women's Financial Insecurity Driving Dissatisfaction?
With our high level of cultural navel-gazing, studies about happiness have large audiences. Add a gendered comparison and the country is riveted. Maureen Dowd wrote in her September 19th column about a recent study showing women’s declining happiness (as compared to men) over the past 40 years. Her piece shot up to the #1 slot on the NYTimes top ten most e-mailed list and remained on the top ten list for five days, the longest I’ve noticed.
The research shows a consistent finding across nations, women are less happy then men and their happiness declines with age. Marcus Buckingham posed an interesting question in a blogpost on Huffington Post about this research: Why?
The reason that men are getting happier, it turns out, is their greater prosperity. I found the results quite surprising. Over the past few decades, our culture has celebrated the shaping of positive attitudes and women seem particularly invested in developing these resources (think of Oprah’s audience). Despite this greater awareness, women’s worrisome financial security is at the core of their declining happiness. Women spend more years in the financially inefficient state of being single, lose wealth and income if they divorce, and earn 80% of what men earn. With the risk of an episode of unemployment or a major health crisis, many women are not far from financial quicksand. And, what happens when all these women age into retirement?
We need a more integrated approach to increase women’s financial security and this may well become a major policy issue in the coming decades. And, it will most likely be addressed when more women are in public office.
The research shows a consistent finding across nations, women are less happy then men and their happiness declines with age. Marcus Buckingham posed an interesting question in a blogpost on Huffington Post about this research: Why?
The reason that men are getting happier, it turns out, is their greater prosperity. I found the results quite surprising. Over the past few decades, our culture has celebrated the shaping of positive attitudes and women seem particularly invested in developing these resources (think of Oprah’s audience). Despite this greater awareness, women’s worrisome financial security is at the core of their declining happiness. Women spend more years in the financially inefficient state of being single, lose wealth and income if they divorce, and earn 80% of what men earn. With the risk of an episode of unemployment or a major health crisis, many women are not far from financial quicksand. And, what happens when all these women age into retirement?
We need a more integrated approach to increase women’s financial security and this may well become a major policy issue in the coming decades. And, it will most likely be addressed when more women are in public office.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
The Integrity Candidate
I held a fundraiser for Dana Kennedy, Candidate for Phoenix City Council. After Dana gave her talk about the race and her opponent, one of our guests said he'd like to make a contribution to her race. Dana asked him if he had any business before the City of Phoenix and he said, "Well, I have a couple cases against the Phoenix Police". Another guest piped in that the matter didn't directly relate to City Council business, but could end up at the Council. Dana rejected the contribution wanting nothing to interfere with her clear judgement. Her opponent takes tons of money from real estate developers and those with matters before the City Council.
Candidates like Dana restore my confidence in the integrity of poltics and government. Spread the word about her race: www.kennedyforphoenix.com.
Candidates like Dana restore my confidence in the integrity of poltics and government. Spread the word about her race: www.kennedyforphoenix.com.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
A Call for Mediocrity
A recent Stanford and University of Chicago study
shows that "women in Congress introduce more bills, attract more co-sponsors and bring home more money for their districts than their male counterparts do. The study, which examined the performance of House members between 1984 and 2004, found that women delivered roughly 9 percent more discretionary spending for their districts than men." For instnce, "Rep. Zoe Lofgren delivered around $859 million to her district, compared with $541 million brought in by her predecessor, Rep. Don Edwards, during his final term, the researchers said."
The reason for this outperformance is that women still face more primary and general election challenges than men and those women that manage to get elected are superstars. According to the Politico article, "Women who run and win are likely the most politically ambitious and talented of their pool, having potentially overcome hurdles including voter bias and self-doubt about their ability to win."
Since I've devoted the last decade to getting more women into the political pipeline, one could say I'm working towards giving woman equal opportunity to be mediocre!
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27152.html#ixzz0RIVfwQLL
shows that "women in Congress introduce more bills, attract more co-sponsors and bring home more money for their districts than their male counterparts do. The study, which examined the performance of House members between 1984 and 2004, found that women delivered roughly 9 percent more discretionary spending for their districts than men." For instnce, "Rep. Zoe Lofgren delivered around $859 million to her district, compared with $541 million brought in by her predecessor, Rep. Don Edwards, during his final term, the researchers said."
The reason for this outperformance is that women still face more primary and general election challenges than men and those women that manage to get elected are superstars. According to the Politico article, "Women who run and win are likely the most politically ambitious and talented of their pool, having potentially overcome hurdles including voter bias and self-doubt about their ability to win."
Since I've devoted the last decade to getting more women into the political pipeline, one could say I'm working towards giving woman equal opportunity to be mediocre!
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27152.html#ixzz0RIVfwQLL
Friday, September 4, 2009
Emerge Arizona Director Dana Kennedy Runs Brilliant Race
A top Phoenix city official called me on Wednesday, Sept 2, to ask me "Who did Dana Kennedy use as her campaign manager? Everyone at City Hall wants to know because she ran such a brilliant race." Dana won enough votes in the September 1st election to force the incumbent into a runoff in November. I also heard that Dana's campaign had the feel of a federal campaign with its number of volunteers and its level of organization. Apparently, Dana has set a new bar for the caliber of race for the Phoenix City Council.
I was happy to report that Dana had been her own campaign manager and Emerge Arizona alumnae had volunteered in force. Emerge Arizona women literally took over the phonebanks at the Democratic Party headquarters during the last week of the campaign. Dana spent $30,000 on her race, while the incumbent spent $200,000, needing five times as much per vote - and the incumbent had much greater name recognition at the outset of the race. How do you want your city to be run? Join me in supporting Dana's candidacy at www.kennedyforphoenix.com.
I was happy to report that Dana had been her own campaign manager and Emerge Arizona alumnae had volunteered in force. Emerge Arizona women literally took over the phonebanks at the Democratic Party headquarters during the last week of the campaign. Dana spent $30,000 on her race, while the incumbent spent $200,000, needing five times as much per vote - and the incumbent had much greater name recognition at the outset of the race. How do you want your city to be run? Join me in supporting Dana's candidacy at www.kennedyforphoenix.com.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
French Finance Minister Argues in Favor of Legislation and Preferential Treatment of Women
Christine LaGarde, in a Forbes Woman video argues that legislation and preferentrial treatment are required to create more gender equality. LaGarde is the former head of international law firm, Baker McKenzie and currently France's finance minister. She believes "it will take too long" to create gender balance without more aggressive measures.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Growth Capital For the Non-Profit Sector, the Case of Emerge America
The White House has established a Social Innovation Fund that identifies the most promising, results-oriented non-profit programs and expands their reach throughout the country by supplying additional capital.
"Melody Barnes, Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council highlighted the Fund Tuesday in a keynote speech to the Council on Foundations. "The Social Innovation Fund reflects the President’s new governing philosophy: finding and investing in what works; and partnering with and supporting others who are leading change in their communities," Barnes said. "We are also working with Federal agencies across the government to identify new solutions to problems that have resisted traditional approaches." (Source: White House website).
As the Founding Executive Director of Emerge America, I can attest to how this kind of money could accelerate the growth of successful programs. Emerge America is a political organization and would not be a candidate for this fund, yet, Emerge America is a great illustration of how the non-profit world can identify a social challenge (too few women in public office) and create a new solution that addresses the core problem (women need campaigning skills and a political network to enter politics as a candidate), and scale that solution. The question is how quickly can this scaling occur. And who provides the growth capital?
We launched our first program in 2002 which provides seven weekend workshops to a group of 25 Democratic women leaders over seven months. Though we are constantly looking at ways to improve and innovate, we had worked out many of the basic kinks by the beginning of year 2. A small example: our application process in the first year was a bit general and we had some program members who were more interested in leadership development (which is great) than running for office (our raison d’etre). One of our board members, Dana Kennedy, moved to Arizona in 2003 and started up our second affiliate. With the combined success of Arizona and California, we were more than ready to launch new affiliates.
In 2005, I set up Emerge America and in 2006, I ran around the country and launched 4 new states with a tiny budget of $150,000. If I had had more money, I would have invested more money in grants to our affiliates and for more staff time to do technical assistance to the affiliates’ executive directors and board members. However, I don't think we would have grown more quickly in that first year.
As an aside, I had an intense passion for meeting with elected officials, donors, and advisory board members and signing them up to the Emerge mission. I would love to have had the money to free up my time from fundraising, technical assistance to affiliates, board management, etc. to have more time and staff to build affiliates. I particularly appreciated the response I got from elected officials. I usually couldn’t say more than a sentence without them signing onto the advisory board and pulling out their checkbooks, wishing we’d been around for them when they wanted to run.
It was really in our second full year that more money would have made a tremendous difference in our growth trajectory. In our second full year, I had a budget of $450,000, including $100,000 for seed money for new and existing affiliates and a small staff of three at headquarters. With these resources, I could only expand by one new affiliate.
The case for expanding more quickly is in our metrics: over 40 percent of our graduates were in public office after the program and over 45 percent of our graduates are women of color.
Hypothetically, with an additional $500,000 per year, I could have added five more states per year, had a staff of seven and more money for grants to states.
We are currently going into our ninth state. Had we had an additional $500,000 in each of the past three years, we would probably be going into our 25th state by now. And in 5 more years, we could be in all states! This is the kind of exciting difference that the White House Social Innovation Fund can make.
For more reading, see this Huffington Post piece.
"Melody Barnes, Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council highlighted the Fund Tuesday in a keynote speech to the Council on Foundations. "The Social Innovation Fund reflects the President’s new governing philosophy: finding and investing in what works; and partnering with and supporting others who are leading change in their communities," Barnes said. "We are also working with Federal agencies across the government to identify new solutions to problems that have resisted traditional approaches." (Source: White House website).
As the Founding Executive Director of Emerge America, I can attest to how this kind of money could accelerate the growth of successful programs. Emerge America is a political organization and would not be a candidate for this fund, yet, Emerge America is a great illustration of how the non-profit world can identify a social challenge (too few women in public office) and create a new solution that addresses the core problem (women need campaigning skills and a political network to enter politics as a candidate), and scale that solution. The question is how quickly can this scaling occur. And who provides the growth capital?
We launched our first program in 2002 which provides seven weekend workshops to a group of 25 Democratic women leaders over seven months. Though we are constantly looking at ways to improve and innovate, we had worked out many of the basic kinks by the beginning of year 2. A small example: our application process in the first year was a bit general and we had some program members who were more interested in leadership development (which is great) than running for office (our raison d’etre). One of our board members, Dana Kennedy, moved to Arizona in 2003 and started up our second affiliate. With the combined success of Arizona and California, we were more than ready to launch new affiliates.
In 2005, I set up Emerge America and in 2006, I ran around the country and launched 4 new states with a tiny budget of $150,000. If I had had more money, I would have invested more money in grants to our affiliates and for more staff time to do technical assistance to the affiliates’ executive directors and board members. However, I don't think we would have grown more quickly in that first year.
As an aside, I had an intense passion for meeting with elected officials, donors, and advisory board members and signing them up to the Emerge mission. I would love to have had the money to free up my time from fundraising, technical assistance to affiliates, board management, etc. to have more time and staff to build affiliates. I particularly appreciated the response I got from elected officials. I usually couldn’t say more than a sentence without them signing onto the advisory board and pulling out their checkbooks, wishing we’d been around for them when they wanted to run.
It was really in our second full year that more money would have made a tremendous difference in our growth trajectory. In our second full year, I had a budget of $450,000, including $100,000 for seed money for new and existing affiliates and a small staff of three at headquarters. With these resources, I could only expand by one new affiliate.
The case for expanding more quickly is in our metrics: over 40 percent of our graduates were in public office after the program and over 45 percent of our graduates are women of color.
Hypothetically, with an additional $500,000 per year, I could have added five more states per year, had a staff of seven and more money for grants to states.
We are currently going into our ninth state. Had we had an additional $500,000 in each of the past three years, we would probably be going into our 25th state by now. And in 5 more years, we could be in all states! This is the kind of exciting difference that the White House Social Innovation Fund can make.
For more reading, see this Huffington Post piece.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
The Onion: Cambridge Cop Accidentally Arrests Henry Louis Gates Again During White House Meeting
WASHINGTON—Upon arriving late to his meeting with President Barack Obama and famed African-American intellectual Henry Louis Gates, Cambridge police officer James Crowley once again detained the distinguished Harvard scholar after failing to recognize the man he had arrested just two weeks earlier, White House sources reported Thursday. "When I entered the Oval Office, I observed an unidentified black male sitting near Mr. Obama, and in the interest of the president's safety, I attempted to ascertain the individual's business at the White House," Crowley said in a sworn statement following the arrest. “The suspect then became uncooperative and verbally abusive. I had no choice but to apprehend him at the scene for disorderly conduct.” Witnesses said that Sgt. Crowley, failing to recognize Gates on their flight to Logan Airport, arrested the tenured professor in midair, once again at the baggage claim, and twice during their shared cab ride back to Cambridge.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Womenonmics: Why Women WIll Rule the World
Here's an article about Claire Shipman and Katty Kay's book "Womenomics" from Time magazine.
Work-life balance. In most corporate circles, it's the sort of phrase that gives hard-charging managers the hives, bringing to mind yoga-infused, candlelit meditation sessions and — more frustratingly — rows of empty office cubicles.So, what if we renamed work-life balance? Let's call it something more masculine and appealing, something like ... um ... Make More Money. That might lift heads off desks. A few people might show up at a meeting to discuss that new phenomenon driving the bottom line: Women, and the way we want to work, are extremely good for business.Let's start with the female management style. It turns out it's not soft; it's lucrative. The workplace-research group Catalyst studied 353 Fortune 500 companies and found that those with the most women in senior management had a higher return on equities — by more than a third.Are the women themselves making the difference? Or are these smart firms that make smart moves, like promoting women? There is growing evidence that in today's marketplace the female management style is not only distinctly different but also essential. Studies from Cambridge University and the University of Pittsburgh suggest that women manage more cautiously than men do. They focus on the long term. Men thrive on risk, especially when surrounded by other men. Wouldn't the economic crisis have unfolded a bit differently if Lehman Brothers had a few more women on board?Women are also less competitive, in a good way. They're consensus builders, conciliators and collaborators, and they employ what is called a transformational leadership style — heavily engaged, motivational, extremely well suited for the emerging, less hierarchical workplace. Indeed, when the Chartered Management Institute in the U.K. looked ahead to 2018, it saw a work world that will be more fluid and more virtual, where the demand for female management skills will be stronger than ever. Women, CMI predicts, will move rapidly up the chain of command, and their emotional-intelligence skills may become ever more essential.That trend will accelerate with the looming talent shortage. The Employment Policy Foundation estimated that within the next decade there would be a 6 million – person gap between the number of college graduates and the number of college-educated workers needed to cover job growth. And who receives the majority of college and advanced degrees? Women. They also control 83% of all consumer purchases, including consumer electronics, health care and cars. Forward-looking companies understand they need women to figure out how to market to women.All that — the female management style, education levels, purchasing clout — is already being used, by pioneering women and insightful companies, to create a female-friendly working environment, in which the focus is on results, not on time spent in the office chair. On efficiency, not schmoozing. On getting the job done, however that happens best — in a three-day week, at night after the kids go to bed, from Starbucks. And here's the real kicker. When a company gives employees freedom, it doesn't just feel good or get shiny, happy workers — productivity goes up. Ask firms like Capitol One, which runs a company without walls or mandatory office time. Or Best Buy, which implemented a system called ROWE — results-only work environment — and found that productivity, in some cases, shot up 40%. Flexibility is no longer a favor to be handed out like candy at a children's birthday party; it's a compelling business strategy.So we need to get rid of the nutty-crunchy moral component of the work-life balance and make a business case for it. It's easy to do. In fact, a decade from now, companies will understand that hiring lots of women, and letting them work the way they want, will help them Make More Money.
Work-life balance. In most corporate circles, it's the sort of phrase that gives hard-charging managers the hives, bringing to mind yoga-infused, candlelit meditation sessions and — more frustratingly — rows of empty office cubicles.So, what if we renamed work-life balance? Let's call it something more masculine and appealing, something like ... um ... Make More Money. That might lift heads off desks. A few people might show up at a meeting to discuss that new phenomenon driving the bottom line: Women, and the way we want to work, are extremely good for business.Let's start with the female management style. It turns out it's not soft; it's lucrative. The workplace-research group Catalyst studied 353 Fortune 500 companies and found that those with the most women in senior management had a higher return on equities — by more than a third.Are the women themselves making the difference? Or are these smart firms that make smart moves, like promoting women? There is growing evidence that in today's marketplace the female management style is not only distinctly different but also essential. Studies from Cambridge University and the University of Pittsburgh suggest that women manage more cautiously than men do. They focus on the long term. Men thrive on risk, especially when surrounded by other men. Wouldn't the economic crisis have unfolded a bit differently if Lehman Brothers had a few more women on board?Women are also less competitive, in a good way. They're consensus builders, conciliators and collaborators, and they employ what is called a transformational leadership style — heavily engaged, motivational, extremely well suited for the emerging, less hierarchical workplace. Indeed, when the Chartered Management Institute in the U.K. looked ahead to 2018, it saw a work world that will be more fluid and more virtual, where the demand for female management skills will be stronger than ever. Women, CMI predicts, will move rapidly up the chain of command, and their emotional-intelligence skills may become ever more essential.That trend will accelerate with the looming talent shortage. The Employment Policy Foundation estimated that within the next decade there would be a 6 million – person gap between the number of college graduates and the number of college-educated workers needed to cover job growth. And who receives the majority of college and advanced degrees? Women. They also control 83% of all consumer purchases, including consumer electronics, health care and cars. Forward-looking companies understand they need women to figure out how to market to women.All that — the female management style, education levels, purchasing clout — is already being used, by pioneering women and insightful companies, to create a female-friendly working environment, in which the focus is on results, not on time spent in the office chair. On efficiency, not schmoozing. On getting the job done, however that happens best — in a three-day week, at night after the kids go to bed, from Starbucks. And here's the real kicker. When a company gives employees freedom, it doesn't just feel good or get shiny, happy workers — productivity goes up. Ask firms like Capitol One, which runs a company without walls or mandatory office time. Or Best Buy, which implemented a system called ROWE — results-only work environment — and found that productivity, in some cases, shot up 40%. Flexibility is no longer a favor to be handed out like candy at a children's birthday party; it's a compelling business strategy.So we need to get rid of the nutty-crunchy moral component of the work-life balance and make a business case for it. It's easy to do. In fact, a decade from now, companies will understand that hiring lots of women, and letting them work the way they want, will help them Make More Money.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Boomer-Consumers Will See Millenial Drive Towards Hyper-Capitalism
In a recent kpfa podcast , Rick Wolff and Harriet Fraad suggest a fundamental change in the relationship between employees and employers. According to the GBN panel, our passe version of capitalism works when employees justify their labor for wages by ever-growing status through ever-growing consumption. The labor-for-consumption model worked beautifully because wages rose for over 100 years, until the 1970s. After the 70's, consumption continued and was subsidized by growing mounds of debt and rising home values. With the implosion of home values and the deep recession, growing consumption as the justification for treadmill jobs is gone. In its place, individuals, particularly young people, will need to identify more directly with their work. We already see Millenials need to be true to themselves, a de-emphasis on material goods and caring less about job security than their parents, the Baby Boomers (really should be called the "Boomer-Consumers") (See Barbara Bylenga's work on Millenials at www.outlawconsulting.com).
What might this mean beyond increasing sales for "What Color is your Parachute"? As Millenials seek less job security (as they acquire less stuff) and move up Maslow's hierarchy to self-actualization, we'll see more entrepeneurs and that Millenials will change the companies they work for. Companies that want to recruit and retain young people will need to leave behind old-school business practices such as coordination via hierarchy and parent-child leadership. Instead, companies will need to implement peer-peer leadership and decentralized decision-making. For more on the comparison of mechanized and dynamic business models, see Dr. Homa Bahrami, PhD, UC Berkeley.
Millenials will also demand greater transparency for the profitability that they bring to their employers - AND - a greater piece of the action. In exchange for greater risk-taking, i.e., less job security, Millenials will usher in hyper-capitalism. Instead of the Marxist slogan, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", we'll have the Millenialist slogan "From each according to his creativity and stomach for risk, to each according to his profitability".
What might this mean beyond increasing sales for "What Color is your Parachute"? As Millenials seek less job security (as they acquire less stuff) and move up Maslow's hierarchy to self-actualization, we'll see more entrepeneurs and that Millenials will change the companies they work for. Companies that want to recruit and retain young people will need to leave behind old-school business practices such as coordination via hierarchy and parent-child leadership. Instead, companies will need to implement peer-peer leadership and decentralized decision-making. For more on the comparison of mechanized and dynamic business models, see Dr. Homa Bahrami, PhD, UC Berkeley.
Millenials will also demand greater transparency for the profitability that they bring to their employers - AND - a greater piece of the action. In exchange for greater risk-taking, i.e., less job security, Millenials will usher in hyper-capitalism. Instead of the Marxist slogan, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", we'll have the Millenialist slogan "From each according to his creativity and stomach for risk, to each according to his profitability".
Monday, May 4, 2009
The Role of Power Brokers in Decision-making
In the late 1990's, Brooksley Born’s efforts to regulate the derivatives market slammed into the triumvirate of Washington’s finance power brokers: Alan Greenspan, Larry Summers and Bob Rubin. She was prophetic in her concerns yet ultimately unsuccessful in her attempts to regulate the derivatives market. Here’s a great article about this battle in the Stanford Magazine. How does any organization make decisions based on the best information and analysis, instead of capitulating to titanic personalities with the mega power bases? How will Obama score on this?
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Flexibility at the FBI Reflects Move To Attract More Women
In the past, FBI Special Agents were almost exclusively male. In part, this was because women had a harder time passing the firearms test because the firearm that they use for the test (and carry 24 hours a day) is built for a man's hand. On it's website, the FBI discusses it's need to recruit more women:
"In many cases, women possess different analytical skills, approach problems differently, and have different talents and abilities than do men. These different skills, approaches, and talents often spell the difference between success and failure on a case or investigation. We have found that investigative teams composed of a blend of female and male Special Agents are much more effective at bringing complex investigations to a speedy and successful resolution."
Interestingly, the FBI has even created a part-time program for Special Agents, stating "Female agents are still trying to balance family and work, and the FBI is doing what it can to help, recognizing the tremendous value female Special Agents bring to the FBI." The FBI's recognition of women's performance has moved the FBI to a newfound flexibility on its policies. If the FBI were simply complying with gender discrimination laws, I doubt we'd see part-time Special Agent positions.
"In many cases, women possess different analytical skills, approach problems differently, and have different talents and abilities than do men. These different skills, approaches, and talents often spell the difference between success and failure on a case or investigation. We have found that investigative teams composed of a blend of female and male Special Agents are much more effective at bringing complex investigations to a speedy and successful resolution."
Interestingly, the FBI has even created a part-time program for Special Agents, stating "Female agents are still trying to balance family and work, and the FBI is doing what it can to help, recognizing the tremendous value female Special Agents bring to the FBI." The FBI's recognition of women's performance has moved the FBI to a newfound flexibility on its policies. If the FBI were simply complying with gender discrimination laws, I doubt we'd see part-time Special Agent positions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
