Real Thoughts

Recently, I was having coffee with a good friend and past professor when our conversation turned to the subject of women in power, or more specifically, the lack of women in power. We were both puzzled by the fact that women who “make it” don’t help other women succeed, thus continuing the cycle. Where are the Good Old Girls networks?

This seems to be an even more compelling subject than I thought since the gentleman sitting next to us felt compelled to interrupt our conversation to share his opinion in the matter. Our coffee shop neighbor turned out to be a surgeon. He worked with several powerful women, and he believed that these women were simply smarter than men; their brain power was without equal. These women—he said—were also mean, “catty,” controlling and power-hungry. They were the complete opposite of the men who made it to the top, who were smart—although not as smart as women—but also “good guys.” In his experience, men were more balanced, working not only to be top performers, but also working well with others, helping their fellow-men move up the ladder.

This conversation was still in the back of my mind when a few weeks later I read an article in The Economist that talked about a study done at Washington University in St. Louis. The study had proven that women do indeed not help one another. Women in the study were afraid that if they helped another woman, and this woman underperformed, the underperformer’s failure would cast a shadow on the woman who recommended her. On the other hand, if the newcomer was a success, she then became competition for the few token female positions available. And finally, women did not help other women because of fear of it being considered gender favoritism. In essence, a lose-lose situation for all women.

There is clearly a problem here; the important question is how to solve it? I think radical action should be implemented in the way of quotas. Norway did it in 2007, and today at 40.1% Norway has the highest percentage of women board participation in the world. Some might argue that this is a form of affirmative action. Well it is, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t needed. Women aren’t only half of the world’s population, they’re also 60% of its college graduates, yet they represent only 3% of Fortune 500 CEOs and hold just 15.2% of board seats in these companies. This is an endemic problem that requires dramatic solutions.

And hopefully, by making it easier for women to reach the top, those who succeed will feel less like gladiators that had to claw and kick their way to the top, and more like team players, thankful for the opportunities given to them and thus more willing to help others around them; just like men.

In a NY Times article, Netflix’s Reed Hastings, was named among 2011’s worst CEO’s. Hastings was demonized for raising prices and trying to break his company into two separate entities, one that would focus on its existing mail delivery DVDs and a second that would focus on its streaming services. Personally, I don’t believe that Hastings deserves to be on such a list; quite the opposite.

Many protested Netflix’s price increase. I am a Netflix user and my rate went up by a whopping $4.00. Some might argue that it’s not the total dollar amount, but the idea of a 20% increase. I must admit 20% sounds high, but these extra costs came to reconcile for streaming services Netflix had been providing at no additional charge. Netflix streaming services were an instant hit in my house, so much so that my living room TV is now dubbed the Netflix TV. I even returned the cable box since it wasn’t being used any more. I saw the value of this service instantly and knew it was just a matter of time before Netflix raised its prices. It was too good to be true. After all, all that content is not free. Admittedly, raising the prices slowly would have allowed Netflix to benefit from creeping normalcy when actions inflicted in slow, small steps go on almost unnoticeably.  A strategic misstep on Reed Hastings’ part perhaps, yet not enough to be one of worst CEOs of the year.

The division of his company is another complaint.  Netflix success blossomed from the demise of the once mighty Blockbuster.  It figured out a way to eliminate late fees and still make a profit.  Netflix changed the way people got their movies, and influenced the way they were watched.  After years of growth it’s now an institution that just like Blockbuster before it runs the danger of eventually becoming irrelevant.  Reed Hastings is working hard to ensure that Netflix remains atop its perch.  His actions are straight out of The Innovator’s Dilemma (by Clayton M. Christensen) which states that well-managed companies can only survive in the long-term by developing disruptive technologies, technologies that might take them away from the practices that made them industry leaders in the first place.

Earlier this week the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science released its list of Oscar nominees. And surprisingly, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, the last installment of the iconic series was missing from the list of nine movies competing for this year’s Best Picture Award. In the interest of full disclosure, I’m a huge Harry Potter fan who owns every film and book in the saga.

But back to the point that I want to make — as we approach the February 26 awards ceremony, the conversation will change from who the nominees are and those who were unfairly ignored, to the ever shrinking audience for the televised event. We will also hear about the Academy’s next gimmick to become more popular. Like the disastrous 2011 attempt to become hipper by having James Franco and Anne Hathaway, two young stars host the show.

I have a question for the Academy: If you want to attract a larger audience, why don’t you nominate movies that people have actually watched? Just like in sports, most individuals don’t watch games simply to awe at the beauty of the athleticism; instead, as fans, they have a vested interest in one or both of the teams competing against each other. For the majority of Americans, or foreigners, as the Oscar is an international event, what is the drive to watch a movie they haven’t seen beat another 8 movies they haven’t seen? Pass me the remote.

You cannot be a popular brand if you do not offer a popular product. This is not to endorse the notion of only nominating commercially successful films, of course, but rather a request that a film’s earnings be not held against it. The Academy can’t ignore popular taste while expecting millions to tune in. Do popularity and high box office make a movie any less worthy of a Best Picture Award? Is art real art only when it is enjoyed exclusively by a select few? I think not. It’s time the Academy learns to give its audience what they want; before its audience decides that the Academy is no longer relevant.

The other day I was talking with a friend who has a long and successful work history and is now trying to change fields. She was frustrated because the feedback she kept getting from recruiters was “stay with what you know. Right now employers are only looking for people who can hit the ground running.”

 This phrase-“hit the ground running”-stuck with me because, in my experience, that is very difficult to do. Even if you performed the same job within the same industry, a new position in a new company always comes with new challenges. After all, each company has its own culture, its own set of procedures, its own way to do things.

 I was once passed up for a job at a medical practice because I had no healthcare experience. The person who was hired (who had healthcare experience) lasted two weeks and shortly after I got a call asking if I was still interested in the position. I took it, and worked there for almost 3 years.

 I think that a better way to approach hiring is to focus on culture match, flexibility, and attitude. Skills can be taught, but you’ll never be able to change a personality.

The best holiday-themed social commentary I’ve ever seen. Enjoy: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/12/sacks-wayne-holiday-essay-201112

I love Sheryl Sandberg.  

It was love at first sight when I read her New Yorker profile, and my feelings were cemented by her TED talk. For those who might not know, Sandberg is COO of Facebook and the person credited with remaking the ubiquitous social network site into a respectable business. Although Sandberg rose through the ranks of a male-centered industry, she managed to maintain her femininity. In her TED talk, she comes across as personable and confident yet soft-spoken and warm. She is not one of the guys, but she can still beat them at their own game.

During her TED talk, Sandberg discusses the lack of female leaders in business and politics. She shares some of her best advice for changing that gender imbalance. Sandberg encourages women to “sit at the table,” speak up, and share their ideas. This particularly struck me since, as a woman, I understand the struggle of trying to lead while trying to shush that little inner voice that prompts me to be a good girl.

Sandberg also asks women not to “leave before they leave” or to give up on their professional ambitions once they decide to go have children; this is a valid point, yet it might be more of a systematic problem than a personal one. At least twice, I’ve been asked during a job interview if I had children (this question is, of course, illegal, but that didn’t seem to matter). One interviewer went as far as to explain to me that he was asking because the open position required a high level of commitment and long hours, and it was the company’s opinion that a woman with children would not be the best fit for the role. I don’t have children yet; however, this interviewer’s candor made me wonder about my career prospects. How am I supposed to get the jobs I want in the future when those doing the hiring will think I can’t do the job because I have kids?

Right now, female leaders in Sheryl Sandberg’s position are the exception, but the goal should be to make them commonplace. Women at every tier must work toward individual goals and systematic changes that will create better opportunities for fellow female professionals. And, maybe one day, I won’t have to worry about being asked if I have kids during job interviews.

Last week, I attended a networking event.  Networking is a big word in business school. Just like my mother’s cure-all herbal teas, networking is spoken about like the cure to any ailment.

I believe networking can be useful, if we only know what it really is. Chances are that if you ask someone what networking is, they will say something like, “You know, networking.” Not very enlightening, right?

I think that the first problem with networking is the actual word. I would prefer something like netbuilding. After all, that’s what we’re trying to accomplish: to build a network of people who want to see us succeed and who will be available for help, advice, contacts and good wishes.

Although the word “work” is not part of netbuilding, it does require some effort. Keith Ferrazzi in his book “Never Eat Alone” (which I recommend as a good and informational read) talks about keeping track of everyone he knows in order to make sure he contacts each person at least once a year, and also calls them on their birthdays.

Netbuilding should come naturally by meeting people and nourishing the relationship for years. But these relationships should not be phony and grounded in self-interest; instead they should develop from genuine interest in who our connections are, what they need, and how we can help them.  Netbuilding is about making everyone in our network better off, not just us.

Netbuilding, or for that matter, networking, is not a quick fix; it’s not something that we can just pick up and do when we’re looking for a job. Netbuilding is a way of life that must be followed and perfected over the years. It might sound like a lot of work, but it sure sounds better than pushing your business cards to dozens of strangers in a crowded room, while drinking cheap wine at yet another networking event.