Have you ever had a colleague or employee that just didn’t fit? You know what I mean, when they just don’t seem to “get” things the way you “get" them. I have and recently is occurred to me that they really did see the world from a different perspective. And I don’t mean they had different opinions, I mean their brain seemed wired in entirely different ways.
What I enjoyed, they feared. What I desired repulsed them. And the way I saw the everyday issues that faced our business, compared to the way they perceived them, was so different it was as though we were experiencing completely different things. It was like we were from different planets.
After another exasperated conversation with an employee in question, a different member of my team (who happens to be a geneticist) suggested her colleague lacked the variation on the D4 Dopamine Receptor Gene that my geneticist has long ago determined the rest of our company to possess.
I was like, “what?”
She went on to explain to me that about 25 per cent of the population have a variation on a dopamine producing gene that made them seek novelty, act impulsively and embrace risk. It is the very same gene that has been associated with ADHD and thrill seeking adrenaline junkies.
She was certain that almost all of our team had that thrill seeking variation and that anyone who did not, simply would not fit in.
What went through my brain next may indeed horrify you. It certainly horrified me.
“I am going to genetically test my potential new hires from here on in,” I declared. “And I don’t mean for ‘aptitude’. I am going to genetically test them. If you don’t have this novelty seeking gene you’re out of the running.”
Needless to say she was a little taken back. As a geneticist she was well aware of the power and potential of genetics, but she happened to also have very strong opinions about privacy.
You’ll be pleased to know I recanted almost immediately, not because of privacy though, but because I do not support the ‘reductionist theory’ of human potential that suggests our achievements in life are pre-determined by our genetic make-up. Influenced sure, but pre-determined, no.
But this little internal debate got me thinking. Is it only a matter of time before we are allowed to do such tests? Sure, in most countries it is technically illegal to discriminate on such grounds but most legislation I have been looking at contains exceptions to capturing such information.
For instance, corporate wellness programs designed to help employees take care of themselves are an acceptable way to obtain genetic information. Now it is illegal to use that information in a discriminatory way, but once it is out there it is surely easy for someone to be influenced by the results?
Many companies already psychometrically test people . Why not extend this to much more fundamental issues such as whether they are genetically wired to take risks and push the envelope or not?
A challenging question, don’t you think?
And I don’t just mean because we will all want the risk-takers. 2008 saw the destruction of personal wealth on an immense scale. Why? Because a too many chief executives and senior executives took insane risks.
Perhaps we should be testing those with whom we entrust our life’s savings and the well-being of the global economy?
Should we be allowed to genetically test our employees so we can create the best “genetically balanced” teams?
What about testing CEOs and boards? They hold such immense power over the well-being of so many others, shouldn’t we use ALL means available to us to put the right people in these positions?
Do you believe it is inevitable that this will happen anyway?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted October 5, 2009 on the Sydney Morning Herald
Monday, October 19, 2009
Future Proof: Sexist pigs?
Imagine spending 10 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to solve a problem only to make it worse, not better. That sounds a bit like marriage doesn’t it? Just kidding! (I hope my wife doesn’t read my blog.) I am talking about the futile attempts of many Australian companies to recruit women into senior roles in business.
I have been working with a client recently trying to address this very issue, and as part of my preparation I did some research to find examples of best practice.
We ended up focusing on 23 global companies which had won awards in the last few years for their women’s initiatives.
What we found shocked me so much that I feel compelled to share it with you.
Of the 23 companies we studied we were only able to find evidence that six of them had made any substantial improvements in the number of women they had in senior roles. And none were Australian.
One European arms of a Big Four accounting firm even went as far to claim credit for 26% of their graduate intake being women. Some further search indicated that 50% of the available talent pool was female. Hardly an achievement worthy of commendation.
And here is the most disturbing part. The six who did were only able to do it with arbitrary quotas and targets. It turns out because we (and I am including women themselves in 'we') have such deep biases that our prejudice is mostly unconscious.
How is it that in 2009 we need to be “forced” to promote women into positions they deserve as much as the men with whom they compete for them?
I need to confess here that I feel like the pot calling the kettle black. In the middle of this research I hosted a lunch for 12 highly successful young entrepreneurs.
Only when we all arrived for lunch did it become evident that I had invited 10 men and one women. And it took the one woman to point that out to me.
Even as I was knee deep in this stuff, my unconscious biases were so strong I failed to take appropriate action.
Consider some of the following things that came out of the research:
* As a general rule senior managers overestimate their “open mindedness” and ability to make non-sexist judgments. It turns out that we are half as open minded and inclusive in their behaviour as they think they are.
* Women are just as capable of discriminating against other women as men are. Some researchers even suggest they are trying to protect their positions as the “only” woman on the board.
* Even when women’s networking groups exist, they are often excluded from the informal networks that count. That is, the networks where the most important decisions get made.
And what makes this most shocking is that ALL of the credible research shows that companies with greater diversity (namely women) in senior roles outperform the market by as much as 33%.
In other words, it is good for business but we don’t change?
Here are some insights from the six that have had progress which you may find interesting:
* Quotas work. As “insulting” as the need for a quota may be for many women, to get results we must forcefully break the biases which keep the status quo entrenched. Insisting that at least one female candidate be in the final three for each appointment and promotion to a senior position.
* Senior leaders are required to find at least 1 female that they will personally mentor and make it their personal responsibility to ensure they progress to the higher ranks.
* Facilitating much more intimate networks to form between aspiring women and senior managers (especially men) is far more powerful than formal women’s networks.
* Unleashing “change agents” with the power to enforce the diversity agenda, who actively seek out insight from women in the business and actively coach them to get on development programs in the like is a powerful initiative.
* Making it customer focused and NOT diversity focused. Just using the word 'diversity' makes people’s eyes glaze over, but when it was framed as enticing more women customers and improving the retention of female clients, the changes were more openly embraced and sustained.
I know I am a little late to weigh in on this issue, and I know I am a man, but when I learned that Australia is regressing, I felt the need to speak up!
I am proud to say since starting the starting this research, I have appointed a female board member and six of my seven new employees are women.
If you are in a position of power in your organisation what are you are doing when it comes to this issue? Do you believe it is a problem?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted August 28,2009 on the Sydney Morning Herald
I have been working with a client recently trying to address this very issue, and as part of my preparation I did some research to find examples of best practice.
We ended up focusing on 23 global companies which had won awards in the last few years for their women’s initiatives.
What we found shocked me so much that I feel compelled to share it with you.
Of the 23 companies we studied we were only able to find evidence that six of them had made any substantial improvements in the number of women they had in senior roles. And none were Australian.
One European arms of a Big Four accounting firm even went as far to claim credit for 26% of their graduate intake being women. Some further search indicated that 50% of the available talent pool was female. Hardly an achievement worthy of commendation.
And here is the most disturbing part. The six who did were only able to do it with arbitrary quotas and targets. It turns out because we (and I am including women themselves in 'we') have such deep biases that our prejudice is mostly unconscious.
How is it that in 2009 we need to be “forced” to promote women into positions they deserve as much as the men with whom they compete for them?
I need to confess here that I feel like the pot calling the kettle black. In the middle of this research I hosted a lunch for 12 highly successful young entrepreneurs.
Only when we all arrived for lunch did it become evident that I had invited 10 men and one women. And it took the one woman to point that out to me.
Even as I was knee deep in this stuff, my unconscious biases were so strong I failed to take appropriate action.
Consider some of the following things that came out of the research:
* As a general rule senior managers overestimate their “open mindedness” and ability to make non-sexist judgments. It turns out that we are half as open minded and inclusive in their behaviour as they think they are.
* Women are just as capable of discriminating against other women as men are. Some researchers even suggest they are trying to protect their positions as the “only” woman on the board.
* Even when women’s networking groups exist, they are often excluded from the informal networks that count. That is, the networks where the most important decisions get made.
And what makes this most shocking is that ALL of the credible research shows that companies with greater diversity (namely women) in senior roles outperform the market by as much as 33%.
In other words, it is good for business but we don’t change?
Here are some insights from the six that have had progress which you may find interesting:
* Quotas work. As “insulting” as the need for a quota may be for many women, to get results we must forcefully break the biases which keep the status quo entrenched. Insisting that at least one female candidate be in the final three for each appointment and promotion to a senior position.
* Senior leaders are required to find at least 1 female that they will personally mentor and make it their personal responsibility to ensure they progress to the higher ranks.
* Facilitating much more intimate networks to form between aspiring women and senior managers (especially men) is far more powerful than formal women’s networks.
* Unleashing “change agents” with the power to enforce the diversity agenda, who actively seek out insight from women in the business and actively coach them to get on development programs in the like is a powerful initiative.
* Making it customer focused and NOT diversity focused. Just using the word 'diversity' makes people’s eyes glaze over, but when it was framed as enticing more women customers and improving the retention of female clients, the changes were more openly embraced and sustained.
I know I am a little late to weigh in on this issue, and I know I am a man, but when I learned that Australia is regressing, I felt the need to speak up!
I am proud to say since starting the starting this research, I have appointed a female board member and six of my seven new employees are women.
If you are in a position of power in your organisation what are you are doing when it comes to this issue? Do you believe it is a problem?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted August 28,2009 on the Sydney Morning Herald
Future Proof: Twitter-induced paranoia
It was an absolute train wreck. The who’s who of the marketing industry had gathered in a mega-ballroom in an over-priced US desert resort on the outskirts of Phoenix to hear what we all believed would be a life-changing presentation from a well respected marketing mind.
There was only one problem. Twitter!
You see there is usually a social code. When things are not going so well at a conference we generally sit in silence, nod politely, and then bitch AFTER the session when we had some modicum of privacy.
Not anymore! In a desperate attempt to be modern and hip, the conference organiser had set up a live feed from Twitter to screens throughout the hotel for people to share their thoughts as the conference was progressing.
It was an all out ‘Twit’ attack. The speaker was getting roasted on screen for all to see and on the few hundred iPhones that seem to be spread throughout the room.
This was transparency and openness in it most blunt form and I have to admit I was afraid.
Afraid because I was up next, and afraid that I have been crowing about the need for this kind of open dialogue for years.
I mean it is bad enough getting beat-up on this blog - which happens on a weekly basis I can assure you - but to have it happen then and there, in the moment as you work, is a scary prospect indeed. No wonder brand managers continue to try so hard to protect their companies and products from any real feedback. Feedback hurts! ‘Twitbacks’ Kill!
Is all this transparency a good thing? Is it possible for things to be too ‘out in the open’?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted August 10, 2009 on the Sydney Morning Herald
There was only one problem. Twitter!
You see there is usually a social code. When things are not going so well at a conference we generally sit in silence, nod politely, and then bitch AFTER the session when we had some modicum of privacy.
Not anymore! In a desperate attempt to be modern and hip, the conference organiser had set up a live feed from Twitter to screens throughout the hotel for people to share their thoughts as the conference was progressing.
It was an all out ‘Twit’ attack. The speaker was getting roasted on screen for all to see and on the few hundred iPhones that seem to be spread throughout the room.
This was transparency and openness in it most blunt form and I have to admit I was afraid.
Afraid because I was up next, and afraid that I have been crowing about the need for this kind of open dialogue for years.
I mean it is bad enough getting beat-up on this blog - which happens on a weekly basis I can assure you - but to have it happen then and there, in the moment as you work, is a scary prospect indeed. No wonder brand managers continue to try so hard to protect their companies and products from any real feedback. Feedback hurts! ‘Twitbacks’ Kill!
Is all this transparency a good thing? Is it possible for things to be too ‘out in the open’?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted August 10, 2009 on the Sydney Morning Herald
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
