Below, I've copied an article I wrote with Dorka Keehn on Alternet.
As we push to get more women elected, we need to make sure they care about the right issues.
June 24, 2010
When the results came in from the recent primary elections, the media went haywire calling it "ladies night" and a "new year of the women," primarily because several wealthy, high-profile conservative women were nominated, in some cases to run against female incumbents.
Well, in terms of proclaiming a new "year of the woman," we say, wait just one moment.
Yes, we need more women in office -- females make up 51 percent of the population and Congress only has 17 percent women -- so there is plenty of room for improvement, at the state and local level as well. And yes, as founders of Emerge America, an organization that trains Democratic women to run for office, we are thrilled that there are a significant number of female candidates running for office this year. However, we aren't prepared to call it the "year of the woman," unless those women who are elected care about the issues that will actually move a progressive agenda on issues like the environment, health care and the economy.
There is a long history of women taking advantage of the rights won by women who came before them, but who are hostile to progressive goals. Women actually fought against women's right to vote, women's sexual freedom, equal educational opportunity, and of course, the Equal Rights Amendment.
If we want to make our world a better place, we want candidates who care about our air and water, have empathy for our immigrant sisters from other countries, believe in equal pay for equal work and want to make government more transparent and responsive.
We must increase the number of women Democrats in elected office. When Democratic women are elected, they play a significant role in shaping progressive policies that will benefit women across the board, including poor women. These women candidates are more likely than men and their conservative counterparts to bring citizens into the political process, to opt for open government, and to be responsive to groups previously denied access to the benefits of society.
Women introduce more legislation and co-sponsor more bills than male members, but what kind of bills is also important. We want female leaders who will lead the charge on "women friendly" issues like child-care, and be at the forefront of policies on the economy, health care, the environment and human rights.
With President Obama's landmark health care reform, all Democratic female senators and members of the House except for one congresswoman ensured its victory. And the historic American Clean Energy and Security Act passed with a tight vote supported by 66 Democratic congresswomen's votes, while 40 Democratic congressmen opposed it.
We are not making the case that women are somehow inherently better than men. Research has steadily showed that diverse groups of people make better decisions than like-minded groups due to different perspectives and thought processes. To make the best policy decisions, we need women at every table and we need them in big numbers.
We also aren’t making the case that women are somehow more moral than men in preferring progressive policies. Research at Stanford show that men prefer “hierarchy enhancing” policies and women are more supportive than men of “hierarchy attenuating policies," such as government-sponsored health care, guaranteed jobs for all or greater aid to poor children. They are more likely to agree with statements such as "if people were treated more equally, we would have fewer problems in this country." Women’s preferences are aligned with a progressive agenda and relate to why Republican women sometimes cross party lines to support Democratic legislation.
While the United States holds itself out as a model democracy, it ranks 82nd in the world for women in elected office behind Mexico, China and Pakistan. We push other countries such as Iraq to insert a 25 percent quota for female representation into its constitution, but the United States opposes such requirements for its own government.
What's missing? Women who care need to be recruited and elected to public office. Emerge America is the only organization that gives Democratic women the tools to win: an in-depth training program and a powerful political network. Unlike Republican recruitment, we actively reach out to diverse female leaders and 40 percent of our graduates are women of color. Founded in 2002, Emerge is currently in nine states with plans to expand its program across the country. In such a short time close to 50 percent of our alumnae have already run for office and 60 percent of them have won.
Recently Arianna Huffington celebrated with hundreds of Emerge graduates and their supporters in San Francisco. Her essential message was that it is up to us to seize the moment: "We must all look for the leadership within ourselves and not wait for the knight on a white charger to come and save us."
That is what we are doing at Emerge: Providing the environment and the tools so that committed women with strong human values will look inside themselves and say, Yes, I want to make change. Getting trained and elected to office is one very important way to make that happen.
Marya Stark is the board chair and a founder of Emerge America. She is a principal at Allegory, Inc., a leadership and communications training company. Dorka Keehn is the board co-Chair and a founder of Emerge America. She is currently writing a book, 'Eco-Amazons,' on American women environmental leaders to be published in spring 2011.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Friday, June 11, 2010
Red or Blue: Which Party Truly Needs its Women?
I'm reposting my article from the Huffington Post which I wrote with my Emerge America co-chair Dorka Keehn.
We are intrigued by the sudden surge of Republican women candidates at the national level. As founders of EMERGE AMERICA, an organization that trains Democratic women to run for office, we are keenly aware of the ebb and flow of support for increasing the percentage of women in elected office. But if creating a more transparent government and moving a progressive agenda are the goals, increasing the number of women Democrats in elected office should be a central strategy.
Traditionally, women are viewed as more liberal than men. This gives the advantage to Democrat female candidates and hurts their Republican counterparts. When women are elected, they play a significant role in shaping progressive policy. They are more likely than men to bring citizens into the political process, to opt for open government, and to be responsive to groups previously denied access.
Women also introduce more legislation and co-sponsor more bills than male members. While female electeds lead the charge on "women friendly" issues like child-care, they also are at the forefront of policies regarding the economy, health care, the environment and human rights. Looking at the recent Senate land mine ban, 68 members supported it, which included 100% of the women but only 51% of the men. With President Obama's landmark health care reform, all Democratic female senators and members of the House except for one congresswoman insured its victory. And the historic American Clean Energy and Security Act passed with a tight vote supported by 66 Democratic congresswomen's votes, while 40 Democratic congressmen opposed it.
While the United States holds itself out as a model democracy, it ranks 82nd in the world for women in elected office behind Mexico, China and Pakistan. We push other countries such as Iraq to insert a 25% quota for female representation into its constitution, but the United States opposes such requirements for its own government and at 17% falls far short of its mandates for other countries.
What's missing? Women, like men, need to be recruited to run for public office. Emerge America is the only organization that gives Democratic women the tools to win: an in-depth training program and a powerful political network. Unlike Republican recruitment, we actively outreach to diverse female leaders and 40% of our graduates are women of color. Founded in 2002, Emerge is currently in 9 states with plans to expand its program across the country. In such a short time close to 50% of our alumnae have already run for office and 60% of them have won.
While supporting women candidates may seem a secondary concern for many, electing more Democratic women is the most effective long-term strategy for shaping and passing a progressive agenda and for creating a more transparent democracy.
Dorka Keehn is the Board co-Chair and a co-Founder of Emerge America. She is currently writing a book, ECO AMAZONS, on American women environmental leaders to be published in Spring 2011.
We are intrigued by the sudden surge of Republican women candidates at the national level. As founders of EMERGE AMERICA, an organization that trains Democratic women to run for office, we are keenly aware of the ebb and flow of support for increasing the percentage of women in elected office. But if creating a more transparent government and moving a progressive agenda are the goals, increasing the number of women Democrats in elected office should be a central strategy.
Traditionally, women are viewed as more liberal than men. This gives the advantage to Democrat female candidates and hurts their Republican counterparts. When women are elected, they play a significant role in shaping progressive policy. They are more likely than men to bring citizens into the political process, to opt for open government, and to be responsive to groups previously denied access.
Women also introduce more legislation and co-sponsor more bills than male members. While female electeds lead the charge on "women friendly" issues like child-care, they also are at the forefront of policies regarding the economy, health care, the environment and human rights. Looking at the recent Senate land mine ban, 68 members supported it, which included 100% of the women but only 51% of the men. With President Obama's landmark health care reform, all Democratic female senators and members of the House except for one congresswoman insured its victory. And the historic American Clean Energy and Security Act passed with a tight vote supported by 66 Democratic congresswomen's votes, while 40 Democratic congressmen opposed it.
While the United States holds itself out as a model democracy, it ranks 82nd in the world for women in elected office behind Mexico, China and Pakistan. We push other countries such as Iraq to insert a 25% quota for female representation into its constitution, but the United States opposes such requirements for its own government and at 17% falls far short of its mandates for other countries.
What's missing? Women, like men, need to be recruited to run for public office. Emerge America is the only organization that gives Democratic women the tools to win: an in-depth training program and a powerful political network. Unlike Republican recruitment, we actively outreach to diverse female leaders and 40% of our graduates are women of color. Founded in 2002, Emerge is currently in 9 states with plans to expand its program across the country. In such a short time close to 50% of our alumnae have already run for office and 60% of them have won.
While supporting women candidates may seem a secondary concern for many, electing more Democratic women is the most effective long-term strategy for shaping and passing a progressive agenda and for creating a more transparent democracy.
Dorka Keehn is the Board co-Chair and a co-Founder of Emerge America. She is currently writing a book, ECO AMAZONS, on American women environmental leaders to be published in Spring 2011.
Friday, April 30, 2010
The New Irrational But Measured Self
Remember the good old days when economists thought that people maximized their utility in rational ways? Those knowing days were so pleasingly logical and elegant. Now, it seems that every day, there's new research showing how humans are ruled by irrationality. Books like "Predictably Irrational", "How We Decide" and "Sway: The Irresistable Pull of Irrational Behavior" have all hit the bestseller list in recent years.
Corporations, which supposedly have shareholders or the bottom line to keep us rational are also (predictably) irrational. According to a Level Playing Field Institute Report, "unfairness in the work place costs employers $64 billion on an annual basis, nearly equivalent to the 2006 combined revenues of Google, Goldman Sachs, Amazaon.com and Starbucks." That seems pretty irrational.
This weekend's NYTimes magazine article on the Data-Driven Life describes individuals who have figured out a way to improve thier decision-making by recording the smallest details of thier daily life. For example, a man who wanted to decide whether to quit drinking coffee recorded precisely how much coffee he drank and how much he accomplished. The results were clear: coffee increased his productivity substantially. There's even a website for those that record the minutiae of their life called the "Quantified Self".
Since we can't turn back the clocks and believe that we are rational, we can at least seek to more clearly observe our irrationality and measure away the craziest parts.
Corporations, which supposedly have shareholders or the bottom line to keep us rational are also (predictably) irrational. According to a Level Playing Field Institute Report, "unfairness in the work place costs employers $64 billion on an annual basis, nearly equivalent to the 2006 combined revenues of Google, Goldman Sachs, Amazaon.com and Starbucks." That seems pretty irrational.
This weekend's NYTimes magazine article on the Data-Driven Life describes individuals who have figured out a way to improve thier decision-making by recording the smallest details of thier daily life. For example, a man who wanted to decide whether to quit drinking coffee recorded precisely how much coffee he drank and how much he accomplished. The results were clear: coffee increased his productivity substantially. There's even a website for those that record the minutiae of their life called the "Quantified Self".
Since we can't turn back the clocks and believe that we are rational, we can at least seek to more clearly observe our irrationality and measure away the craziest parts.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Keeping Women in Top Jobs: Are We Closer Than We Think
An acquaintance told me that she'd left her top 10 law firm as a mid-level associate after she was told she shouldn't "plan on going to any wedding that isn't your own". I was struck by this remark being made at this point, a decade into all the efforts that tony law firms make to keep their female associates. The translation is clear: "To make it here, you have to be willing to sacrifice everything".
For a woman, not being able to show up at a close friend's wedding is practically an existential crisis. "If I can't value my friendships, who am I?" Women's relationships are important to them, not just on an "emotional" level, but on a molecular and neurological level. Brain science increasingly tells us that women's health suffers if their relationships are at risk - unlike men. While men also place high value on their friendships, their physical well-being is not at stake.
With the untethering that blackberries provide, there's limited utility in rigid rules that are more based on a hazing attitude than work requirements. When I mention this to my CEO friends, mostly, they say "as long as my attorney/investment banker is available or if they have a backup, I don't care where they are."
If we substitute an ethos of "super hard work" for "sacrifice your first born (somewhat literally)," top firms will be better able to attract and retain top women talent. And firms beware, with the Millenial generation, this applies to both men and women.
For a woman, not being able to show up at a close friend's wedding is practically an existential crisis. "If I can't value my friendships, who am I?" Women's relationships are important to them, not just on an "emotional" level, but on a molecular and neurological level. Brain science increasingly tells us that women's health suffers if their relationships are at risk - unlike men. While men also place high value on their friendships, their physical well-being is not at stake.
With the untethering that blackberries provide, there's limited utility in rigid rules that are more based on a hazing attitude than work requirements. When I mention this to my CEO friends, mostly, they say "as long as my attorney/investment banker is available or if they have a backup, I don't care where they are."
If we substitute an ethos of "super hard work" for "sacrifice your first born (somewhat literally)," top firms will be better able to attract and retain top women talent. And firms beware, with the Millenial generation, this applies to both men and women.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Emerge: Game Changer in Oregon
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
