Monday, December 26, 2011
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Successful networking
Which types of networking are most successful? A recent survey of 12,000 business people around the world confirmed some of my hunches but produced some surprising results, as well.
As part of research for a book, my co-authors and I asked people what types of organizations they belong to and whether networking played a role in their success. We cross-tabulated the results to determine how effective different types of networking are.
As we had expected, people who get the most results from networking efforts seem to participate in face-to-face casual-contact networks like chambers of commerce, referral networks, and to a lesser extent, professional associations.
We were surprised, however, that only 27 percent of the respondents said online networking has played a role in their success. Networking through women's business organizations and through service clubs fared even worse, with only 17.7 percent and 17.2 percent of respondents, respectively, giving them credit for playing a part in their success.
Even though they didn't do well in this survey, I'm quite an advocate of online networks, women's business organizations and service clubs. I did some thinking about why these groups received such low-success ratings.
I'm inclined to believe women's organizations and service clubs didn't do well because they have other important purposes that take precedence over networking. Women's business groups often provide a place where members both support and educate each other, while service clubs focus primarily on providing service to the community. People, therefore, may not experience as much tangible success in networking efforts in these groups.
Related: An Expert Networker's Five Tips for Getting the Most from LinkedIn
The survey results for online networks made me think of a comment I hear quite often from business owners who want to market their products and services on social and business networking sites: "I've got a profile page and a thousand connections…now what?" Many entrepreneurs spend a lot of time and effort building their online social capital through LinkedIn "connections," Facebook "friends" and "likes," and Twitter "followers," but lack an actual plan for turning the growing number of contacts into customers.
Another issue for online networking: the exponential increase in marketing and social messages and the competition for people's attention. In the course of a typical day, we might be chatting on Google Talk, looking at friends' photos on Facebook, watching a celebrity's Twitter feed, learning about a connection's promotion on LinkedIn, reading a blog for business or pleasure, and doing an Internet search. We are inundated and easily distracted by these entreaties: Read this! Buy this! Try this! Connect with me! Like my business!
I certainly don't think entrepreneurs should stop finding ways to improve their success in the online networking arena. But the results are the results, and -- still a surprise to me -- they're not very good.
As part of research for a book, my co-authors and I asked people what types of organizations they belong to and whether networking played a role in their success. We cross-tabulated the results to determine how effective different types of networking are.
As we had expected, people who get the most results from networking efforts seem to participate in face-to-face casual-contact networks like chambers of commerce, referral networks, and to a lesser extent, professional associations.
We were surprised, however, that only 27 percent of the respondents said online networking has played a role in their success. Networking through women's business organizations and through service clubs fared even worse, with only 17.7 percent and 17.2 percent of respondents, respectively, giving them credit for playing a part in their success.
Even though they didn't do well in this survey, I'm quite an advocate of online networks, women's business organizations and service clubs. I did some thinking about why these groups received such low-success ratings.
I'm inclined to believe women's organizations and service clubs didn't do well because they have other important purposes that take precedence over networking. Women's business groups often provide a place where members both support and educate each other, while service clubs focus primarily on providing service to the community. People, therefore, may not experience as much tangible success in networking efforts in these groups.
Related: An Expert Networker's Five Tips for Getting the Most from LinkedIn
The survey results for online networks made me think of a comment I hear quite often from business owners who want to market their products and services on social and business networking sites: "I've got a profile page and a thousand connections…now what?" Many entrepreneurs spend a lot of time and effort building their online social capital through LinkedIn "connections," Facebook "friends" and "likes," and Twitter "followers," but lack an actual plan for turning the growing number of contacts into customers.
Another issue for online networking: the exponential increase in marketing and social messages and the competition for people's attention. In the course of a typical day, we might be chatting on Google Talk, looking at friends' photos on Facebook, watching a celebrity's Twitter feed, learning about a connection's promotion on LinkedIn, reading a blog for business or pleasure, and doing an Internet search. We are inundated and easily distracted by these entreaties: Read this! Buy this! Try this! Connect with me! Like my business!
I certainly don't think entrepreneurs should stop finding ways to improve their success in the online networking arena. But the results are the results, and -- still a surprise to me -- they're not very good.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Quota system for women on boards in Britain
Lord Davies's dismissal of a quota system to allow more women to sit on top UK boards is a lost opportunity
Lord Davies's report Women on Boards will do little to rectify the dearth of senior women in the UK's top companies. His rejection of imposed quotas in favour of voluntary targets of at least 25 per cent female representation on FTSE-100 boards by 2015 lets companies off the hook. The recommendation that the "comply or explain" principle be enshrined in a revised corporate governance code allows firms to carry on as they have always done, and excuse their lack of progress with a traditional argument about "lack of suitable or available female talent".
Female talent abounds—it's just that it is often not directly under the noses of boards. I've argued here before that the real losers are not the women who don't make it to the board but companies themselves, not to mention their shareholders. Most women consciously step off the corporate career ladder, unwilling to make the sacrifices to the rest of their lives that a senior job in a top company requires. But unbalanced boards have consequences for corporate success, and Davies sets out the business case, with a body of supporting evidence, persuasively in his report.
For example, research shows that companies with more board-level women enjoy a 42 per cent higher return on sales, a 66 per cent higher return on invested capital and a 53 per cent higher return on equity than their rivals. Also, gender-balanced boards are better able to understand their equally gender-balanced customers and stakeholders, as well as bringing different perspectives, ideas and challenges that cut through group-think.
What's more, it makes no sense to have half the available competencies-those embodied in women-sitting outside the door, particularly in a climate where good people are hard to find and keep.
The wonder is that more boards don't understand the business case. Maybe they do, but dominated by men as they are their fear of being overrun by women outweighs their ambition for corporate success. The possibility that Britain's boardrooms are the last bastions of male chauvinism is a depressing thought.
Even more dispiriting is the fact that gender bias is so hardwired in companies-whose structures were designed by and for men-that women themselves are prejudiced against their own sex, albeit unconsciously. The new targets "must not result in helicoptering women into top roles", said Penny de Valk, chief executive of the Institute of Leadership & Management. Men are helicoptered into top jobs all the time, ostensibly as saviours but with mixed results. So why should women be denied the same chance?
Another woman I spoke to said quotas would create "a false environment", but would it really be any more false than the one that sees most (male) non-executive directors nodded into jobs through the old boys' network, without a formal interview?
Most of the 89 per cent of respondents to Davies's review who opposed quotas were women-afraid, it seems, that appointments under the quota system would devalue women's contribution. But isn't this slight possibility infinitely preferable to the current system, which prevents them making much of a contribution at all?
In truth, most of the arguments against quotas hold for targets too, so it's disappointing that Davies didn't bite the bullet. Despite their drawbacks, quotas would seem to be no more imperfect than the system that has prevailed for too long-and they could prove the platform for change that we so clearly need. According to the most recent Female FTSE report from Cranfield School of Management, women still made up only 12.5 per cent of the members of FTSE-100 boards and 7.8 per cent of FTSE-250 boards in 2010.
Four out of 10 Norwegian directors are now female since the introduction of quotas in 2008, and there hasn't been a major corporate collapse there. Other European countries are set to follow suit, and it seems inevitable that unless British companies set and meet the required targets it will be only a matter of time before mandatory quotas are imposed here, too.
But it will be a short-sighted company that attempts to simply paint over the damp wall of organisational structures, processes and cultures that repel, rather than attract, ambitious women, and lots of talented men, too. Real change will come from a combination of the "push" of quotas and the "pull" of more attractive working environments.
So the collective sigh of relief echoing around Britain's boardrooms needs to turn into the panting of exertion as boards wrestle with the rising damp and dry rot which, if left untreated, could bring the whole edifice crumbling around their ears.
Lord Davies's report Women on Boards will do little to rectify the dearth of senior women in the UK's top companies. His rejection of imposed quotas in favour of voluntary targets of at least 25 per cent female representation on FTSE-100 boards by 2015 lets companies off the hook. The recommendation that the "comply or explain" principle be enshrined in a revised corporate governance code allows firms to carry on as they have always done, and excuse their lack of progress with a traditional argument about "lack of suitable or available female talent".
Female talent abounds—it's just that it is often not directly under the noses of boards. I've argued here before that the real losers are not the women who don't make it to the board but companies themselves, not to mention their shareholders. Most women consciously step off the corporate career ladder, unwilling to make the sacrifices to the rest of their lives that a senior job in a top company requires. But unbalanced boards have consequences for corporate success, and Davies sets out the business case, with a body of supporting evidence, persuasively in his report.
For example, research shows that companies with more board-level women enjoy a 42 per cent higher return on sales, a 66 per cent higher return on invested capital and a 53 per cent higher return on equity than their rivals. Also, gender-balanced boards are better able to understand their equally gender-balanced customers and stakeholders, as well as bringing different perspectives, ideas and challenges that cut through group-think.
What's more, it makes no sense to have half the available competencies-those embodied in women-sitting outside the door, particularly in a climate where good people are hard to find and keep.
The wonder is that more boards don't understand the business case. Maybe they do, but dominated by men as they are their fear of being overrun by women outweighs their ambition for corporate success. The possibility that Britain's boardrooms are the last bastions of male chauvinism is a depressing thought.
Even more dispiriting is the fact that gender bias is so hardwired in companies-whose structures were designed by and for men-that women themselves are prejudiced against their own sex, albeit unconsciously. The new targets "must not result in helicoptering women into top roles", said Penny de Valk, chief executive of the Institute of Leadership & Management. Men are helicoptered into top jobs all the time, ostensibly as saviours but with mixed results. So why should women be denied the same chance?
Another woman I spoke to said quotas would create "a false environment", but would it really be any more false than the one that sees most (male) non-executive directors nodded into jobs through the old boys' network, without a formal interview?
Most of the 89 per cent of respondents to Davies's review who opposed quotas were women-afraid, it seems, that appointments under the quota system would devalue women's contribution. But isn't this slight possibility infinitely preferable to the current system, which prevents them making much of a contribution at all?
In truth, most of the arguments against quotas hold for targets too, so it's disappointing that Davies didn't bite the bullet. Despite their drawbacks, quotas would seem to be no more imperfect than the system that has prevailed for too long-and they could prove the platform for change that we so clearly need. According to the most recent Female FTSE report from Cranfield School of Management, women still made up only 12.5 per cent of the members of FTSE-100 boards and 7.8 per cent of FTSE-250 boards in 2010.
Four out of 10 Norwegian directors are now female since the introduction of quotas in 2008, and there hasn't been a major corporate collapse there. Other European countries are set to follow suit, and it seems inevitable that unless British companies set and meet the required targets it will be only a matter of time before mandatory quotas are imposed here, too.
But it will be a short-sighted company that attempts to simply paint over the damp wall of organisational structures, processes and cultures that repel, rather than attract, ambitious women, and lots of talented men, too. Real change will come from a combination of the "push" of quotas and the "pull" of more attractive working environments.
So the collective sigh of relief echoing around Britain's boardrooms needs to turn into the panting of exertion as boards wrestle with the rising damp and dry rot which, if left untreated, could bring the whole edifice crumbling around their ears.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
What men & women think about each other
Consider Howard Wolowitz and Rajesh Koothrappali.
They may be fictional characters on a popular sitcom, "The Big Bang Theory," but new research suggests there’s a lot of truth in how they interact with women.
Wolowitz is a teeny guy with dorky hair and dorky clothes. He’s brilliant and gainfully employed, but on the attractiveness scale, he’s maybe a 2, possibly a 2 ½. Despite his physical shortcomings, though, he imagines every hot woman who glances his way wants to jump his bones. Of course, he’s always wrong.
Then there’s his buddy Raj, a pretty nice-looking guy once you get past his haircut. But he’s so insecure around women he can’t even talk to them unless he’s drunk.
What’s the deal?
There are "tons" of studies that show men think women are interested when they’re not, says lead author Carin Perilloux, a visiting professor at Williams College. But her study, which will be published in an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, found that not all men do. And surprisingly, it appears that the dorky, less attractive guys are more likely to think they’re babe magnets than their more attractive counterparts.
Perilloux was an unattached graduate student at the University of Texas when she decided to look into how men perceive women’s level of sexual interest and vice versa. She and her coauthors enlisted the help of about 200 straight undergrads, split evenly between the sexes, with an average age just shy of 19.
The researchers asked each of their subjects to rate their own attractiveness on a scale of 1 to 7. The students then had three-minute one-on-one conversations with five members of the opposite sex, a setup the scientists describe as "speed meeting." (The goal wasn’t to get a date, because some of the participants already were involved with people outside the study.) After each conversation, they rated the other person’s attractiveness and sexual interest.
The more attractive the woman was to the guy, the more likely he was to overestimate her interest in him, researchers found. And it turns out, the less attractive men (who believed they were better looking than the women rated them) were more likely to think beautiful women were hot for them. But the more attractive guys tended to have a more realistic assessment.
And the women? Perilloux and her coauthors found that women underestimated men’s sexual interest.
Believe it or not, this all probably makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, the scientists say. Attractiveness is linked to fertility, so if guys keep hitting on hot women, they’re bound to score occasionally and father sons who act the same way. Those attractive men don’t have to try as hard. As for the women, their underestimation of guys’ sexual interest might help prevent them from developing a reputation as a slut
Of course, if men and women were more explicit about their level of interest, they wouldn’t be so confused, Perilloux points out. But it’s unlikely either sex is going to use the line "hey, I’m 75 percent interested in you."
So here’s Perilloux’s tips: "For men, the best piece of advice is to be more cautious if you’re interested in someone." For women, she says, save the flirting for guys you actually are interested in sleeping with. "Men seem to take any flirtatious signal and run with it."
They may be fictional characters on a popular sitcom, "The Big Bang Theory," but new research suggests there’s a lot of truth in how they interact with women.
Wolowitz is a teeny guy with dorky hair and dorky clothes. He’s brilliant and gainfully employed, but on the attractiveness scale, he’s maybe a 2, possibly a 2 ½. Despite his physical shortcomings, though, he imagines every hot woman who glances his way wants to jump his bones. Of course, he’s always wrong.
Then there’s his buddy Raj, a pretty nice-looking guy once you get past his haircut. But he’s so insecure around women he can’t even talk to them unless he’s drunk.
What’s the deal?
There are "tons" of studies that show men think women are interested when they’re not, says lead author Carin Perilloux, a visiting professor at Williams College. But her study, which will be published in an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, found that not all men do. And surprisingly, it appears that the dorky, less attractive guys are more likely to think they’re babe magnets than their more attractive counterparts.
Perilloux was an unattached graduate student at the University of Texas when she decided to look into how men perceive women’s level of sexual interest and vice versa. She and her coauthors enlisted the help of about 200 straight undergrads, split evenly between the sexes, with an average age just shy of 19.
The more attractive the woman was to the guy, the more likely he was to overestimate her interest in him, researchers found. And it turns out, the less attractive men (who believed they were better looking than the women rated them) were more likely to think beautiful women were hot for them. But the more attractive guys tended to have a more realistic assessment.
And the women? Perilloux and her coauthors found that women underestimated men’s sexual interest.
Believe it or not, this all probably makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, the scientists say. Attractiveness is linked to fertility, so if guys keep hitting on hot women, they’re bound to score occasionally and father sons who act the same way. Those attractive men don’t have to try as hard. As for the women, their underestimation of guys’ sexual interest might help prevent them from developing a reputation as a slut
Of course, if men and women were more explicit about their level of interest, they wouldn’t be so confused, Perilloux points out. But it’s unlikely either sex is going to use the line "hey, I’m 75 percent interested in you."
So here’s Perilloux’s tips: "For men, the best piece of advice is to be more cautious if you’re interested in someone." For women, she says, save the flirting for guys you actually are interested in sleeping with. "Men seem to take any flirtatious signal and run with it."
Business lessons from the Wiggles
The release of BRW's list of Australia's best-paid entertainers has underlined once again what an incredible success story children's entertainment group The Wiggles is.
The business – yes, that's a fair description – posted gross earnings of $28.2 million in the last 12 months, according to BRW, which is an impressive result the boys in the coloured skivvies didn't release a new album during that period and a key member (purple Wiggle Jeff Fatt) was ill for part of the year.
I've got a three-and-a-half year old boy, so I've had a bit of a chance to study the money-making machine up close in the last few years – or at least through the prism of the CDs, DVDs and Band-Aids (they're a particularly big hit) that lie around our place.
With this in mind, I've compiled five business lessons that SMEs can take from The Wiggles:
The business – yes, that's a fair description – posted gross earnings of $28.2 million in the last 12 months, according to BRW, which is an impressive result the boys in the coloured skivvies didn't release a new album during that period and a key member (purple Wiggle Jeff Fatt) was ill for part of the year.
I've got a three-and-a-half year old boy, so I've had a bit of a chance to study the money-making machine up close in the last few years – or at least through the prism of the CDs, DVDs and Band-Aids (they're a particularly big hit) that lie around our place.
With this in mind, I've compiled five business lessons that SMEs can take from The Wiggles:
Extend the brand
The business of selling stuff to kids is all about licensing – how many different products can you get The Wiggles symbol on? Lunch boxes, backpacks, toys and of course CDs, books and DVDs are all part of the range. But the deal to put the brand on Band-Aids is a particularly good example of the way the group has been able to find left-field branding opportunities.Diversify
The number of different programs (both on television and stage shows) produced by The Wiggles is pretty amazing. There is the Dorothy the Dinosaur Show, Wiggly Waffle, Wiggle and Learn and a show for little kids called Baby Antonio's Circus. Many of these shows are repackaged or cut down versions of other content, which highlights another business lesson – the power of bundling and introducing different tiers of products.Succession
A key to any business, but not easy to pull off when your four key "executives" (the Wiggles themselves) are so recognisable. However, when illness forced Greg Page out of the Wiggles a few years back, the transition to the new yellow Wiggle, Sam Moran, was seamless. Will they be able to gradually replace all the members? That will be tougher, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.Direct marketing
A key to The Wiggles' longevity on the highest-earning entertainers list is their dedication to live concerts. Not only are the margins much better on concerts than they are on DVDs and CDs, but the constant touring engenders the sort of loyalty that keeps the sales of licensed goods ticking over.Exporting
Without question, the smartest thing The Wiggles ever did was look outside of Australia and take their brand to America and Europe. It just goes to show that kids are kids everywhere – happy music, bright colours and colourful characters work in any market.Saturday, December 10, 2011
Capital Region Entrepreneurs
www.meetup.com
The Canberra Entrepreneurs group is an opportunity to build/enhance your contact network and knowledge base. Entrepreneurship Association of Australia The Entrepreneurship Association of Australia is a not-for-profit association dedicated to providing information, research and networking activities based on four categories: commercial, corporate, social and government entrepreneurship. The Entrepreneurship Association of Australia provides information on programs and activities to increase individual efficacy, and entrepreneurial behavior. Information on entrepreneurial activities will be collected by membership focused on developing knowledge within their desired field. Information will be disseminated through the EAA web site. Members may utilize their EAA home page as a virtual networking tool selecting links and communicating with other members. A priority objective of EAA is to be comprehensive in presenting links for existing entrepreneurship programs, providing promotional support for effective programs, and creating or innovating programs based on membership demand. Each entrepreneurship group operates through leaders driving activities based on group needs and desires. Communication between members through the EAA web site will originate ideas to further develop into action. The monthly meetings of the Canberra Entrepreneurs will allow for sharing membership knowledge through panel led open discussions on pre-selected topics. This is your opportunity to start, grow and develop your PCN (personal contact network). Joining the Canberra Entrepreneurs Meet-up group may allow you to develop your leadership skills, presentation skills, networking and increase your efficacy for development of your own entrepreneurial activities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)