Filed under: Issues | Tags: brad feld, career, change agent, leadership, lobbyist, lucinda sanders, mentor, middle management, ncwit, women in technology, women's issues
I once worked at a company that had its own quarterly women’s consortium. At the start of the first meeting one of our senior male executives made the joke, “I like the odds,” in reference to the female to male attendance ratio. After about 30 minutes of rah-rah-sis-boom-bah, we were handed company-branded hair brushes and sent on our way. I was unimpressed.
I felt as if the effort was for corporate show more than for substance. There was no action. There sure as heck was irony, but there was no action. I walked away still craving the tools to truly make change and wanting to see our female leaders step up and help the rest of us be heard. It never happened. And that’s when it occurred to me that I might have to make it happen myself.
One of the organizations I’ve recently learned a lot about is the National Center for Women & Information Technology. Founded by Lucinda Sanders, an amazing woman, NCWIT is a different kind of women’s organization in that it “encourages its members to undertake institutional change within their organizations.” It has specific alliances or corporations and organizations — academic, workforce, entrepreneurial, K-12 and social sciences — that are focused on active sharing of resources and successful programs from a national community of practitioners dedicated to fostering the paths of technical women of all ages and giving them a booming voice in the industry.
I recently had a chance to speak with Lucy, as well as Brad Feld, chairman of NCWIT and founder of Foundry Group. In two separate conversations, I was able to voice my biggest concerns:
- There aren’t enough voices; so many women in my demographic (middle management) tend to believe that organizations are only designed to mentor younger entrants into the field, and that those organizations must be led by senior executives or entrepreneurs
- There’s a lot of “in-stereotyping;” for example, while I am somewhat technical my background is in journalism and marketing, but I’ve had women technologists diminish my role for that reason; we need to support each other regardless of our technical prowess
- Some women’s organizations do little else than communicate with each other and are not active in the industry at large — at least not in ways that can fuel wide-spread change. While social groups are great, my personal desire is to get outside and do more.
While I am passionate about all of these points, right now I want to focus primarily on the first one. So I ask myself and I ask my readers: Who are your female leaders? Who within your organization do you think represents how most women should be perceived? Who has the strength to make change?
Is it you?
The first time someone asked me those types of questions my reaction was, “Well, I could be one of them, but I am only a ______.” I went along believing that in order to have strong visibility within the IT community one needed to be an executive or founder. Look at all of the technology publications with award programs for women — 95 percent of them are focused on entrepreneurs or executives. In security there are several well-known female researchers who are highly technical and also set a great example, but that is also a small percentage. What about the rest of us?
I discussed this with Brad about which he made a critical statement:
“The most impactful people tend to be the doers in the organization. We can’t rely solely on entrepreneurs, who may have very little time, to make change happen. Anyone with a strong voice can be a role model. It’s easier to get started when you’re a leader but real change happens when you build momentum across a much broader spectrum.”
Do you hear that, ladies? There is room for us. We “doers” who sit in our cubes or in front of our laptops for 12+ hours a day can be those change agents. But first we need to determine what we want to change.
Here’s my list:
- More in-corporation programs for mentoring younger female entrants into the workforce, including expanded or revised internship programs that require a certain amount of hands-on tech hours
- Technical-to-non-technical “buddy programs” where women in engineering team with women in sales or marketing to learn about the value and the intricacies of each others job, therefore growing respect and improved communications
- Incentive for women (and men, for that matter) to get involved in hero or role model programs for younger technologists; a lot of Fortune 1000 companies have these types of volunteer incentive programs, but the majority of smaller ones do not
- Teach women in technology of all levels on the importance of getting involved in lobbying campaigns and organizations that push for education and improvement; even if its to volunteer at a fundraiser here and there, do it. Do SOMETHING. Remember the work that was done to lay out the path before us and help to lay out a path for those who follow.
That’s about as far as I’ve gotten so far. I have the ideas and now I need to lay out the how. I need to determine how I can break these ideas down into simple action items supported by fundraising and communications efforts in order to make them happen. If I can do this with NCWIT, fantastic, but if not I will find some way to achieve my goal. This blog post represents not only part one in a series of writings, but part one in my exploration to lead from the middle and impact positive change.
What are YOU going to do?
Filed under: Issues | Tags: ageism, business strategies, corporate culture, gen x, gen y, generation x, generation y, generational divide, Harvard Business Review, private enterprise, Tamara Erickson
I have mixed feelings about Tammy Erickson’s latest blog on the Harvard Business Review site. In “Ten Reasons Why the Relationship Between Gen X and Corporations is Strained”, Ms. Erickson explores the challenges that exist between Gen Xers and the corporate structure and while she makes some exceptional points overall the article isn’t digesting well. I struggle a bit with the black-and-white Gen X vs. Gen Y or Gen X vs. Baby Boomer distinctions. While this does exist, in my experience, the greatest divide in today’s private enterprise is between the Gen Xers themselves.
In her article, Ms. Erickson dubs Gen X as “folks in their 30s to early 40s” – a common definition. I fall just shy of the middle of that range and I find myself, even in a management position, empathizing more with the Gen Y worker bees than some of my Gen X colleagues. I don’t know if it’s because of my geekish technogadget nature or my childlike enthusiasm for the inane but I am definitely more a mashup of hand-selected generational qualities than a stamped-and-processed case study.
Some of the implications that I have a hard time keeping down:
• Gen Xers are the most conservative cohort in today’s workforce
• Gen Ys are pesky and hard to manage
• Boomer colleagues can be annoying
• Xers are being overlooked in the lovefest between Gen Y and the Boomers
Now, I am not going to say that these points are wholly untrue across every corporation. I’m sure there is a Gen X manager out there who is at his or her wit’s end trying to keep a Gen Y employee off of Facebook during work hours. I also can see how at goliath corporations where the leadership may be more seasoned, how a confrontation between Gen X and the Baby Boomers could arise. Ms. Erickson surmises that Xers might move toward smaller operations to avoid some of the static. But until we address the divide between the Gen Xers themselves, I don’t believe business size can even be a consideration in determining a safe haven for our more radical change agents.
Generation X is known to be a school of innovators and those who do not always take kindly to rules. We march to the beat of our own drum. Sometimes, that drum tells us to conform. Sometimes, that drum tells us to stand out. Sometimes, that drum tells us to run like hell from that which tries to control us. That inner constitutional freedom we possess, unlike some of the Baby Boomers who were more driven by financial security and longevity, or the Gen Y kids who face blocks if they do not possess techno hipness, makes us better able to wear the badges of whatever generation we choose.
Some Gen Xers choose to align more with the Baby Boomers and while they may be at innovative companies or in innovative fields, they cling so tightly to the Boomers that they lose sight of evolving business styles, and thereby get mired in antiquated approaches. Some Xers find their biggest battles, whether internally or externally, to be with this sort. Those on the Gen-X-to-Baby-Boomer quick path might think that because of their age they are more hip than they really are. Whereas it is easier for the Gen Y and savvier Gen X sets to communicate with the Baby Boomers because the Boomers recognize the generation gap. However, when push comes to shove, these Boomers inherently embrace the ideas of their more conservative Gen X protégés.
I am a Gen X gal at heart (see “does not always take kindly to rules”) but I pepper in a heck of a lot of Gen Y and my fiscal common sense gives me enough Baby Boomer drive to survive. I also believe that the Gen Xers’ ability to flex and shift and take on the roles that are most pressing at the moment is what is securing us as future business leaders and what may be what is pushing some Baby Boomers into irrelevancy.
We get technology. We get politics. We get culture – international, pop, or corporate. Especially us younger Gen Xers, we’re tapped into the Gen Y social networks (virtual and IRL) and are connected to the latest and greatest fads, if you will. We’re mature and accomplished enough to earn the respect and mentorship, when needed, from the older set. But we still maintain our groove to the beat of that zany drummer and we understand the “newfangled” ideas that are seen as intangible now yet will be the core of successful business soon enough.
I applaud Tammy Erickson for her insight as she’s one of the first Baby Boomers I’ve seen truly attempt to sympathize with and support the plight of the growing, thriving Gen X corporate change agent. I do believe she is right when she says we have a pre-disposed notion to mistrust corporations and we face various levels of suffocation as career paths grow and narrow. But I also believe we’re more of a mashup generation than the business leaders before us and the army of workers behind us. We’re crafty and can adapt to quick change in our respective industries. Let’s not let the pressures of a pre-defined generational expectation pigeonhole us into a state of unhappiness.
