Poking through 11+ years of posts I find information that’s as useful now as when it was written.

Golden Oldies is a collection of the most relevant and timeless posts during that time.

I wrote this back in 2014. Obviously, I didn’t mention harassment because the post focused on what was in the news, and it wasn’t talked about all that openly, unlike now.

Sadly, nothing has changed. It’s still news and people are surprised.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

I get it. I get what’s going on in terms of women in the workplace is news.

I get it that it is important to remind people that for all the progress that’s been made some things haven’t changed.

It’s still assumed that it’s OK to ask professional women, such as lawyers and marketing execs, to do stuff that would never be asked of the men in the organization.

“…plan parties, order food, take notes in meetings and join thankless committees…bring cupcakes for a colleague’s birthday, order sandwiches for office lunches and answer phones”

By the same token, it’s news that board diversity is moving at glacial speed, primarily because boards only want people with experience and to have experience they need to serve on a board.

“Recruiting women and minorities to boards is being slowed because of boards’ unwillingness to look at candidates who have not yet served on boards,” said Ron Lumbra, co-leader of the CEO and board services practice for Russell Reynolds. “There’s a premium on experience.’’

So while I have no problem with these subjects being presented over and over in the news, there is one thing I don’t understand.

Why are so many people surprised by the information?

Is the general population so naïve that they actually believe women are no longer asked to do tasks that are closer to house work than business work?

Do they really believe that the lack of board diversity is a function of the lack of experience as opposed a desire to spend time with people like themselves who are well within their comfort zones?

The sad part is that while it’s still news, it’s certainly not a surprise.

Flickr image credit: Arya Ziai

A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read all If the Shoe Fits posts here

This post is for all the male founders out there who don’t understand the fuss about diversity, especially gender diversity.

After all, why bother finding female talent when it’s so much easier to find male talent?

What difference does it really make? (click “Resources”)

Venture-backed companies with females as founders or executives are more likely to go public, turn a profit or be sold at a steep price (source: DowJones)

Globally, companies with diverse executive boards enjoy significantly higher earnings and return on equity. (source: DowJones)

Download the Report

The difference is money, stupid; it’s the money.

Hat tip to KG for sending me the link.

Image credit: HikingArtist

A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read all If the Shoe Fits posts here

Do you have or are you planning to put a woman on your board as you grow?

If you are like most of tech and many other companies you aren’t/won’t.

What if it wasn’t about diversity, but about money?

What if having a woman would actually increase your ROI and valuation?

Most boards—public or private, tech or not—fit perfectly into the description offered by one governance expert: “male, pale and stale.”

The last thing most tech people consider themselves is stale, but when it comes to what women want in a product/service or how to engage them they usually come up short.

Doctors and pharmaceutical companies learned the hard way that drugs act differently in men and women.

The automobile and many other industries have traveled a slow and painful road to understanding how and why women buy their product, as well as what they want.

But can just one female board member make that much difference?

One recent report from Credit Suisse analyzed 2,360 companies around the world over the six years ended in December 2011. It found that companies with one or more women on their boards generated higher average share prices and better returns on equity during that period than companies with no women as directors.

As a startup your board is small and usually made up of investors, but that doesn’t stop you from having women on your advisory board, executive team and in senior positions.

Just please don’t use the tired old excuse of “no qualified women available.”

It isn’t true, but it certainly drives home your “stale” mindset.

Image credit: HikingArtist

Post from Leadership Turn Image credit: cesstrelle74

Sadly, the United States has lost its lead in many areas to Europe, and it seems like another is in the process of falling.

“Last week marked the 22nd anniversary of the glass ceiling’s entrance into our vernacular — a phrase which cleverly described the invisible but extensive impediments to women’s ascent into positions of senior leadership…shattering the ceiling once and for all remains an elusive goal.”

And that’s especially true in the Board room.

Europe is different. In 2003 Norway passed a law “requiring companies to fill 40 percent of corporate board seats with women by 2008,” and has succeeded; Spain passed a similar law with a goal of 2015.

“…in a 2007 study by Catalyst , which examined the financial results of 520 companies over a four-year period, it was found that companies with the highest numbers of women board directors outperformed those with the lowest. While European nations are bringing parity to their businesses, their gains are being measured in terms of both talent and the bottom line.”

It’s hard to understand US corporate reluctance, since the result of adding women does fall straight to the bottom line.

We have the talent; the payoff is proven; do we really need to wait for Europe to kick our tail before we wake up and do something?

What ideas do you have that could turn this around?

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL