It’s a bit concerning that nearly 100 years after the suffrage of women in the US, there’s still such a disconnect in leadership for women. It doesn’t make sense that with all the education and learning and time, that women should have such a low representation in global leadership and top managerial positions. For the most part when it comes to gender bias, what we’ve mostly done is created affirmative action programs or quotas, awareness programs about gender bias, and trained women to be more assertive. I wonder though if we’ve approached it the wrong way…
The classical music field faced the same challenge. As Malcolm Gladwell talks about in Blink, in the 1980s women only composed 5% of symphony members. They could have approached it by saying that the Orchestra Maestros have a powerful bias against women and worked to change perception through education and awareness raising. Instead what they did was make the auditions blind. All the auditions occurred behind a screen and suddenly women the norms started to change. Instruments that were thought only to fit men started to find the best performing players in some women. The role of women jumped from 5% to over 50% in just 25 years.
What do we learn from this? The focus on the intervention was on the instinctive judgments, those things we can’t control. The perceptions we don’t realize we’re making. Perhaps its time to make our decisions about leadership blind too. Imagine an interview for a leadership position that was blind. The applicant submitted answers through an intermediary and all applications would be expunged of data related to age, gender, ethnicity. What would really have then is something focused solely on performance, on ability, and not all the other things that inform our views of people. Imagine then what would happen to the balance of gender in leadership. Perhaps the answer is much simpler than we thought.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Don't Prepare, Listen
Being a perfectionist by nature, I’ve felt the constant pressure to perfect my ideas and the way in which I share my ideas. I’ve pored over the wording of a pitch or piece of marketing material because in my view that’s what makes the difference between a flop and a success.
Nonetheless, I had the strangest experience today. I came to meeting today of a student organization I’m looking to work with to share an opportunity for creating a shared vision in the organization. I had spent the morning writing and re-writing my pitch and finally came to something that I was comfortable with. However, within the first five minutes of being in the meeting, I realized that what I had come with was not what they needed. For the next half hour I listened to what the group talked about, how they interacted, and what they seemed to be calling for. When it came to be my turn I had shifted my idea. I had come in thinking that what the organization needed was a shared vision of what it was about. But now, I realized what it needed was an opportunity for people to share what this organization would look like if they were excited to be a part of it; an opportunity to connect what they wanted to what the organization would looked like. My intuition was spot on and the group jumped at the opportunity to do this.
It seems to contradict logic, but the less you prepare and the most you listen, the more likely you’ll get what you want. Perhaps the secret of successful marketers and salesmen, because something about it just seems to work.
Nonetheless, I had the strangest experience today. I came to meeting today of a student organization I’m looking to work with to share an opportunity for creating a shared vision in the organization. I had spent the morning writing and re-writing my pitch and finally came to something that I was comfortable with. However, within the first five minutes of being in the meeting, I realized that what I had come with was not what they needed. For the next half hour I listened to what the group talked about, how they interacted, and what they seemed to be calling for. When it came to be my turn I had shifted my idea. I had come in thinking that what the organization needed was a shared vision of what it was about. But now, I realized what it needed was an opportunity for people to share what this organization would look like if they were excited to be a part of it; an opportunity to connect what they wanted to what the organization would looked like. My intuition was spot on and the group jumped at the opportunity to do this.
It seems to contradict logic, but the less you prepare and the most you listen, the more likely you’ll get what you want. Perhaps the secret of successful marketers and salesmen, because something about it just seems to work.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Infectious Marketing...
150 people froze in place all at the same time. The same people moved all at the same time moved to the sides of the hallway and cheered for the random people coming through on their way to class. The event was called a Flashmob. Something got 150 people to come to the same place at the same time to participate in a random event. What got them there was infectious marketing.
There’s a lot of talk about networked marketing-the spread of ideas and products through networks. However, not every networked marketing approach works. The main difference between those that do and those that don’t are 1) Infectious Energy and 2) Simplicity. The infectious energy means that it connects exactly to what people want. Most marketing starts off by saying, “Here’s a really great product…”. Infectious marketing is starting from “What do you want?” or “If you’re XX type of person, you might find this interesting.” I talked about this with a friend last week who wants to start a chocolate business. It’s about finding the group that will respond to your offer with, “That’s the coolest thing ever!” If you get that response, you’ll have infectious energy. The second key piece is simplicity. Multiple instructions don’t work for people. I’ve seen Flashmobs fail before because they said meet at XX, freeze at 1:30, and unfreeze at 1:32. For this event, all people had to do was show up at a particular place, then I would tell them the next step. Buyers need to be guided to the sale of an idea or product one step at a time, otherwise they won’t even bother.
It’s rare that I see events or products spread like wildfire. What I witnessed today and have witnessed several times in the past is that it’s possible to create things that grow beyond your control; it’s all about how you do it.
There’s a lot of talk about networked marketing-the spread of ideas and products through networks. However, not every networked marketing approach works. The main difference between those that do and those that don’t are 1) Infectious Energy and 2) Simplicity. The infectious energy means that it connects exactly to what people want. Most marketing starts off by saying, “Here’s a really great product…”. Infectious marketing is starting from “What do you want?” or “If you’re XX type of person, you might find this interesting.” I talked about this with a friend last week who wants to start a chocolate business. It’s about finding the group that will respond to your offer with, “That’s the coolest thing ever!” If you get that response, you’ll have infectious energy. The second key piece is simplicity. Multiple instructions don’t work for people. I’ve seen Flashmobs fail before because they said meet at XX, freeze at 1:30, and unfreeze at 1:32. For this event, all people had to do was show up at a particular place, then I would tell them the next step. Buyers need to be guided to the sale of an idea or product one step at a time, otherwise they won’t even bother.
It’s rare that I see events or products spread like wildfire. What I witnessed today and have witnessed several times in the past is that it’s possible to create things that grow beyond your control; it’s all about how you do it.
Monday, January 31, 2011
School is a factory...
Ken Robinson talks brilliantly about this in his TED Talk (1) and recent book “The Element.” In many ways, the education system was built off the paradigms of the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution.
Like the Enlightenment, most of our emphasis in schools is on the subjects that can be proven and are logical: science and math. There’s this hierarchy of subjects where science and math are at the top…the classes you take everyday. I have not yet encountered a school where humanities and music or art are daily required courses. When you think about the topics that help people discover their creative selves, it’s strange that we put this much emphasis on math and science.
Like the Industrial Revolution, we’ve created school to be a factory. The curriculum of schools is divided into installments of history, English, science, much like Henry Ford’s model of the product line. The day is organized into units of time signified by the ringing of a bell much like the bells of break and work time in a factory. And lastly we have batched people by their year, which has little connection to their level of intelligence, experience, or interest. In fact, this is similar to valuing the students based on the date they were manufactured.
As we look at education through this lense, it makes me wonder. Are we valuing creativity or conformity? It seems to me that if we really want the coming generations to be happy that we should focus diversity.
(1) http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
Like the Enlightenment, most of our emphasis in schools is on the subjects that can be proven and are logical: science and math. There’s this hierarchy of subjects where science and math are at the top…the classes you take everyday. I have not yet encountered a school where humanities and music or art are daily required courses. When you think about the topics that help people discover their creative selves, it’s strange that we put this much emphasis on math and science.
Like the Industrial Revolution, we’ve created school to be a factory. The curriculum of schools is divided into installments of history, English, science, much like Henry Ford’s model of the product line. The day is organized into units of time signified by the ringing of a bell much like the bells of break and work time in a factory. And lastly we have batched people by their year, which has little connection to their level of intelligence, experience, or interest. In fact, this is similar to valuing the students based on the date they were manufactured.
As we look at education through this lense, it makes me wonder. Are we valuing creativity or conformity? It seems to me that if we really want the coming generations to be happy that we should focus diversity.
(1) http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
Monday, January 24, 2011
What if Business isn't Evil...
Coming from a background in nonprofit, I’ve spent years thinking that sales and marketing is about getting something from people. It’s evil. It’s so much less valuable than just giving things away from a place of passion.
But now I’ve realized what makes business valuable, it is the best source of innovation…let me explain. In a nonprofit you get funding from a funder and offer services to beneficiaries. If it just so happens that you are only meeting 50% of the beneficiaries desires, then it’s OK, you will still get funded. If you’re in that 50% there’s little incentive to keep up to date with what the beneficiary is really calling for, so there’s little adaptation. In a business, you have to be 100% connected to what the customer wants. You can still come from a place of passion and wanting the person you’re serving to have a better life just as in Nonprofit. Nonetheless, the difference is that if you’re not fully connected to what the person you’re serving wants, then they won’t buy it. This forces you to stay in tune with what the person wants and adapt everything you’re doing to meet it fully.
As much as I’ve made the profit motive a bad thing for years, it serves two purposes. First of all it enables sustainability of an organization. Second of all it creates an environment where you have to deliver fully on the desires of the person you’re serving. So if you share the views I’ve had for years, then perhaps its time to reconsider.
But now I’ve realized what makes business valuable, it is the best source of innovation…let me explain. In a nonprofit you get funding from a funder and offer services to beneficiaries. If it just so happens that you are only meeting 50% of the beneficiaries desires, then it’s OK, you will still get funded. If you’re in that 50% there’s little incentive to keep up to date with what the beneficiary is really calling for, so there’s little adaptation. In a business, you have to be 100% connected to what the customer wants. You can still come from a place of passion and wanting the person you’re serving to have a better life just as in Nonprofit. Nonetheless, the difference is that if you’re not fully connected to what the person you’re serving wants, then they won’t buy it. This forces you to stay in tune with what the person wants and adapt everything you’re doing to meet it fully.
As much as I’ve made the profit motive a bad thing for years, it serves two purposes. First of all it enables sustainability of an organization. Second of all it creates an environment where you have to deliver fully on the desires of the person you’re serving. So if you share the views I’ve had for years, then perhaps its time to reconsider.
Maybe being behind in Math and Science isn't so bad...
There seems to be a raging debate across international borders about developing countries kicking our butts in math and science. But I’m wondering whether this really is a bad thing…
Our education system is based off of a hierarchy of learning which places math and science at the top with creative ventures like arts, theater, and music at the bottom, and humanities in the middle. Time and time again I’ve seen that the greatest ideas come from those who are most connected to their creative selves, so why is it that we’ve put the creative ventures at the bottom? Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi discovered in his groundbreaking research that we are most happy when we get so lost in what we’re doing because we are connected with our own creativity.
Perhaps the debate as China and India rise in their capacity towards math and science is not a bad thing. We as a country have the greatest capacity to unlock the creative capacity of individuals, maybe that is our great strength. Imagine what our country would be like if every person was energized, happy, and generating ideas to make their world better. As the world changes, perhaps it is time for us to stop fighting to grasp what our strength has been for the last 40 years, but rather to step into our new calling as the incubators of creativity.
Our education system is based off of a hierarchy of learning which places math and science at the top with creative ventures like arts, theater, and music at the bottom, and humanities in the middle. Time and time again I’ve seen that the greatest ideas come from those who are most connected to their creative selves, so why is it that we’ve put the creative ventures at the bottom? Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi discovered in his groundbreaking research that we are most happy when we get so lost in what we’re doing because we are connected with our own creativity.
Perhaps the debate as China and India rise in their capacity towards math and science is not a bad thing. We as a country have the greatest capacity to unlock the creative capacity of individuals, maybe that is our great strength. Imagine what our country would be like if every person was energized, happy, and generating ideas to make their world better. As the world changes, perhaps it is time for us to stop fighting to grasp what our strength has been for the last 40 years, but rather to step into our new calling as the incubators of creativity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)