Connect with us

Opinion Editorials

The impact of the few women in the C-suite doesn’t help women as a whole

(EDITORIAL) A study was done on the value of women in leadership and the results were as expected, except for one detail.

Published

on

female leadership

On the up

In the world of business, women still comprise a dismal percentage of corporate leadership – but those numbers are on the rise.

bar
Last year, 2016, was a record-breaker, with 29 women serving as CEO for S&P 500 companies. That’s still a pretty pathetic 5.8 percent, but it’s getting better every year.

First time

For the first time in history we actually have enough female leadership in corporations to complete meaningful research about their impact on companies. The fact that we have to do this research at all exposes an underlying sexism.

No one would bother authoring a study attempting to prove that there is value in male leadership.

Nonetheless, as we move ever further towards gender equality, it’s helpful to study the impact of female corporate leadership so that we can understand how to continually improve the lot of women workers.

Women working with women

One major research question is whether or not having more female corporate leadership will improve the prospects of working women in general. One would assume that having more female bosses would lead to a decrease in the gendered wage gap and more female hires – but the truth is a bit more complex.

Numerous studies have shown that having female leadership is particularly advantage for women who are already doing well at their jobs.

Research shows that a female CEO will pay other women in senior roles a higher salary than a male CEO would – and what’s more, that these firms will also outperform male-led companies. That’s because female CEOs are less likely to discriminate against women, promoting truly talented, hard-working women into roles where they can have a lot of influence and responsibility, leading to more profits overall.

Female executives

Other studies found that companies with more women on their boards are more likely to hire female executives, and that these companies are more profitable than companies will exclusively male boards. Another study of a New York ad agency found that the more female managers they had, the more newly-created jobs were filled by women.

The research is a bit more complicated when you begin to look at women in the lower wage brackets, however.

After Norway passed a law mandating that the boards of public companies consist of 40 percent female members, they found the change had no effect on women’s wages in lower income brackets, and that these companies did not necessarily hire more women.

Not always a positive

In some cases, such as a study of Italian manufacturing firms, women in lower wage brackets received even lower wages under a female CEO. That’s because, while male CEOs might lump women together, giving them all an overall lower salary than their male coworkers, female CEOs were more likely to promote or demote a woman worker according to her performance.

Equality is bigger than titles

These studies show that women leadership begets even more women leadership – but that the positive impacts don’t necessarily trickle down to the lowest paid workers.

It will take more than just adding women to the equation to achieve equality – companies, and our culture at large, must shift to create more equality for women in every pay bracket.

#WomenInLeadership

Ellen Vessels, Staff Writer at The American Genius, is respected for her wide range of work, with a focus on generational marketing and business trends. Ellen is also a performance artist when she's not writing, and has a passion for sustainability, social justice, and the arts.

Opinion Editorials

How I combat being burned out as a remote worker

(EDITORIAL) Being a remote worker is wonderful because I can dress down, but burn out can happen faster than in a traditional setting.

Published

on

remote work

Don’t get me wrong – working from home is great. However, like anything else, there are cons to working from the comfort of your humble abode.

The biggest struggle I have with remote working is being by myself for eight hours a day, then finishing out my day in the exact same place – my house. This is why I’ve started to branch out from the kitchen table and try a few public places.

I’ll go to local coffee shops or the library, which is convenient for knocking out work while still close to home. Still, this comes with the remote working con of working alone.

Being out in an environment (especially one that’s different from your usual surroundings) is incredibly helpful for sparking creativity and productivity. What’s even better is when you find a spot with likeminded people that you can work alongside.

This is what I’ve learned since starting to work at Chicago’s largest incubator, 2112, Inc. I’ve been immersed in a land of creative thinkers which has brought on interesting conversation and great networking opportunities.

A coworking space is the perfect solution for someone who needs things happening around them to ignite productivity. This can also be a solution for combatting remote work burnout.

When working from home for days on end, it has a way of putting me into a routinized funk that is hard to break free from. But, when utilizing a coworking space, it provides the benefits of giving me a place to go, keeping me from at home distractions, and the aforementioned ability to bounce ideas off of others.

Of course, you still run into distractions in a coworking space. For example, social conversation can eat at your day without you even noticing, which defeats the purpose of going for productivity.

To help avoid running into that again and again, get into the mindset of this is your office and you’re here to work. So, after settling in each morning, put pen to paper and determine what needs to be knocked out. Try and get a few things accomplished before getting up to get your morning coffee, where you will likely find conversation.

Remote work is great, but it can come with the distraction of becoming lenient with your workload. Find the best environment for you and don’t forget that, while you may not be being watched, you are still being counted on.

Continue Reading

Opinion Editorials

Who’s missing next to Zuckerberg as he testifies at the political circus?

(EDITORIAL) Facebook Founder, Mark Zuckerberg isn’t testifying because of web privacy violations, this is all a political opportunity with a dash of regulatory salivation thrown in.

Published

on

zuckerberg

Cambridge Analytica. The name of this company has become synonymous with a breach of your privacy. Several years ago, the company took advantage of a loophole that gave them access to 50 million Facebook users’ information. The story is convoluted, but the entire timeline is laid out here so you can see this is about more than just your privacy.

Today, Facebook has begun alerting users if their info was used by Cambridge Analytica to politically target them without their direct consent. But there is no recourse other than the sheer knowledge that your info was used. How novel.

Facebook Founder, Mark Zuckerberg has headed to Capitol Hill to testify before Congress about this situation, which we all know will turn into a dog and pony show filled with political bluster from both sides as they use their time to lecture and stump, and maybe ask a semi-informed question or two.

Why is Zuckerberg on the hot seat alone? Because they’re the biggest visible fish in the sea, so Facebook will be made an example of. Their entire business model is to make money off of your information, and they’ve been pretty open about that since day one.

But Zuck didn’t set the tone, Eric Schmidt at Google did. And social media platforms have followed suit ever since.

Think about it – you know that Facebook collects the data you insert into their walled garden, but Google manufactured your tv, all of your phones, Gmail accounts, and your home assistant, and it’s obvious what they’re doing with all of that data as it is mined and consolidated in a much less obvious way than Facebook. And it’s strange that Google hasn’t come up in any of these talks of collusion, given the depth of their data and lax requirements of advertisers.

That takes us to the overreactions of today – you know that all of you deleting your Facebook accounts aren’t really deleting anything other than your access, right? Facebook still retains the rights to your photos, posts, and past activity. Just as Schmidt noted above as it pertains to Google.

So your information was used to be advertised to. Nothing new to see here. In fact, it’s not even new that Facebook data could be used politically. Although Facebook seemed to turn the other way when this information was being used, they’re certainly no political virgins – Carol Davidsen, director of data integration and media analytics for Obama for America, said Sunday on Twitter of Facebook, “They came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.”

So it’s not new that Facebook allows third parties to use your data. It’s also not new that the data is openly used for political targeting. So why is this call for Congressional hearings now that the toothpaste is so far out of the tube that it’s down the sink!?

Sadly, politics. Because this time it benefited someone that’s popular to hate. But the result will have nothing to do with politics at all.

People under 30 never lived a life with privacy and can tell you that they know it doesn’t exist – and if it’s gone, it’s still on a social media company’s servers somewhere. And if you take a quiz about what kind of bread you are, you know that your info is going to be used for something, because we all know that if you don’t pay for a product, YOU are the product (that’s an old line dating back eras). This is what politicians intend on legislating, good or bad.

Sure, Zuckerberg is the target of the hearings because of the Cambridge Analytica situation that benefited Trump instead of literally anyone else on the planet, but again, he’s flying solo because he’s the biggest fish in the social media sea.

And he should not be in the hot seat alone.

Jack Dorsey should be sitting next to him. Steve Huffman should be sitting next to him. Reid Hoffman should be sitting next to him. Eric Schmidt should be sitting right behind Sundar Pichai.

But it’s more than that. If Zuckerberg is on the hot seat, so should every company that ever uses your data without your direct consent or complete understanding. The politicians and talking heads are all dominating the airwaves right now screaming about privacy, and stomping around that it must be addressed (again, they’re over a decade late). So why not force the auto insurers that use your smartphone info, or health insurers that can use your smartphone activity to indicate your activity levels (and duh, insurability). Why not the fitness apps that report user locations to the public, accidentally unveiling secret military bases? Why not television manufacturers for using data above and beyond what cable knows (like app usage), selling that info to the highest bidders?

Try to tell me this is about privacy. It’s not. So let me tell you where this is going.

Zuckerberg’s flamboyant “let them eat cake” attitude is something the tech world is used to, but politicians are not. What’s at stake is the very nature of Facebook. What are they? How can politicians regulate them? How can they protect users based on the marginal information they kind of understand and kind of don’t?

The bottom line is that they’re asking if Facebook is a media company, a moniker they’ve brushed off for years. That’s where this is going. And they are a media company. Because they are, but are not legislated as one, politicians have set a trap for ol’ Zuck.

And he shouldn’t be alone testifying. He should have a litany of counterparts at various social media companies up there. But their first step is to pin him with being a media company so they can simply regulate the rest.

We’ve cheered on and red flagged both sides of the social media boom since before it began, but watching people not in tune with technology fumble over regulating it is simply bad for business.

Continue Reading

Opinion Editorials

How top performers work smarter, not harder

(EDITORIAL) People at the top of their game work less, but with more focus – learn how to replicate their good habits to get ahead.

Published

on

working smarter

Practice, practice and more practice will get you to be more competent in what you do, but working smarter isn’t always about competency, at least in business. Productivity expert, Morten T. Hansen’s studies indicate that multitasking is detrimental to working smarter. But it’s only half of the problem.

Hansen discovered that the top performers did not try to do thousands of things at a time. He’s not the only one.

Earl Miller, an MIT neuroscientist outlines why humans cannot multitask. As he puts it, “our brains… delude us into thinking we can do more.” But this is an illusion. When we interrupt the creative process, it takes time to get refocused to be creative and innovative. It’s better to focus on one project for a set amount of time, take a break, then get started on another project.

Hansen also found in his research that the top performers focused on fewer goals. He recommends cutting everything in the day that isn’t producing value. As a small business owner, you have to look at which tasks bring in the most profit. This might mean that you outsource the bookkeeping that takes you hours or give up being on a committee at the Chamber of Commerce that is taking too much time away from your business.

Taking on less work will help you work smarter, but Hansen found that it goes hand-in-hand with obsessing over what you do have to do.

When you have fewer burning fires, you can dedicate your time to these tasks to create quality work. According to Hansen, this one thing took middle performers at the 50th percentile and put them into the 75th percentile. When someone is competent in writing reports, for example, and can focus their energy into that, the work is much better.

Top performers also take breaks to rest their brains. One of my favorite analogies is the one where a lumberjack is given a stack of wood that needs to be cut down. He starts with a sharp ax, but over time, as the ax gets dull it becomes harder to chop the wood. By taking a break and sharpening the ax, more gets accomplished with less effort.

Your brain is like that ax. It works great when you first get to work. You’re excited to get started. In a couple of hours, your brain needs a break. Go outside and take a walk. Get away from your desk. Do something different for 15 minutes. When you come back, you should feel like you have a second jolt of energy to take on tasks until you break for lunch. Science backs the need for breaks during the day.

By taking breaks, obsessing over what you have to do, and laser focusing on fewer goals, you’ll be outperforming your competitors (and even coworkers). Work smarter, not harder.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

The
American Genius
News neatly in your inbox

Join thousands of AG fans and SUBSCRIBE to get business and tech news updates, breaking stories, and MORE!

Emerging Stories