A month ago KG shared an article about how Facebook rummages through your life in pursuit of profit using and algorithm called People You May Know. The results are beyond creepy (emphasis mine).

• A woman whose father left her family when she was six years old—and saw his then-mistress suggested to her as a Facebook friend 40 years later.

• An attorney who wrote: “I deleted Facebook after it recommended as PYMK a man who was defense counsel on one of my cases. We had only communicated through my work email, which is not connected to my Facebook, which convinced me Facebook was scanning my work email.”

Still creepier, but great for profit, are Facebook’s shadow profiles.

… built from the inboxes and smartphones of other Facebook users. Contact information you’ve never given the network gets associated with your account, making it easier for Facebook to more completely map your social connections. (…) Because shadow-profile connections happen inside Facebook’s algorithmic black box, people can’t see how deep the data-mining of their lives truly is, until an uncanny recommendation pops up.

Then there is Android, which collects information even when you tell it not to.

Many people realize that smartphones track their locations. But what if you actively turn off location services, haven’t used any apps, and haven’t even inserted a carrier SIM card?

Even if you take all of those precautions, phones running Android software gather data about your location and send it back to Google when they’re connected to the internet…”

“Don’t be evil” Google also records conversations around their products; that’s not counting the bug in the new Home Mini that secretly recorded everything said near it.

And Amazon’s Echo is no different.

Chamath Palihapitiya, Founder and CEO Social Capital, who worked at Facebook for seven years and became vice president for user growth, is the most recent social media veteran to publicly apologize, “I think we have created tools that are ripping apart the social fabric of how society works.”

Social media addiction is not an accident; it’s intentional, design driven, and it’s sole purpose is to generate revenue.

“The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops we’ve created are destroying how society works,” he said, referring to online interactions driven by “hearts, likes, thumbs-up.” “No civil discourse, no cooperation; misinformation, mistruth. And it’s not an American problem — this is not about Russians ads. This is a global problem.”

Palihapitiya’s isn’t the only one feeling guilty.

Palihapitiya’s remarks follow similar statements of contrition from others who helped build Facebook into the powerful corporation it is today. In November, early investor Sean Parker said he has become a “conscientious objector” to social media, and that Facebook and others had succeeded by “exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology.” A former product manager at the company, Antonio Garcia-Martinez, has said Facebook lies about its ability to influence individuals based on the data it collects on them, and wrote a book, Chaos Monkeys, about his work at the firm.

The forces at work behind social media are also money-driven.

In his talk, Palihapitiya criticized not only Facebook, but Silicon Valley’s entire system of venture capital funding. He said that investors pump money into “shitty, useless, idiotic companies,” rather than addressing real problems like climate change and disease. Palihapitiya currently runs his own VC firm, Social Capital, which focuses on funding companies in sectors like healthcare and education.

I doubt any of this is going to change your social media consumption.

But never forget that these companies are not your friend. Their primary purpose is not to make you or anyone else happy.

Their purpose is to make money.

Period.

Anything else that happens is plain old serendipity.

(Watch the entire interview.)
Flickr image credit: Duck Lover

It’s amazing to me, but looking back over more than a decade of writing I find posts with information that is as useful now as when it was written.

Golden Oldies is a collection of what I consider some of the best posts during that time.

Considering the forced use of technology in schools, with the exception of the schools to which the tech honchos send their kids, and the insistence that the best (only?) path to success is found through STEM, I thought this would a great time to reprise a slightly heretical post from 2015 focused on the value of (gasp) liberal arts. Not only does it increase EQ, lib arts will make you one of the few who can actually carry on a face-to-face conversation.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

I constantly read/hear that if you want your kids to have a good life focus on a purely STEM curriculum and they’ll be home free.

Moreover, if they are great at coding they don’t even need college.

While it may be true, at least at this point in time, that they can get a good job if they have strong coding skills, what they are unlikely to get is a promotion that takes them beyond coding, whether in a technical or leadership/management role.

Pulitzer Prize winner (twice) Nicholas Kristof, a columnist for The New York Times, with 1.4 million followers on Twitter, 1.3 million followers on Google+ and 600,000 followers on Facebook (click ‘more’ to see his bio) sums up the value of a humanities, AKA, liberal arts, degree 1, 2, 3.

First, liberal arts equip students with communications and interpersonal skills that are valuable and genuinely rewarded in the labor force, especially when accompanied by technical abilities.

My second reason: We need people conversant with the humanities to help reach wise public policy decisions, even about the sciences.

Third, wherever our careers lie, much of our happiness depends upon our interactions with those around us, and there’s some evidence that literature nurtures a richer emotional intelligence.

Even the most rabid coders don’t want to do it for 40 years.

But if your knowledge of society is limited to code and your ability to interact with others is negligible, then you are left with little choice.

Even a degree in STEM or business won’t give you the broad outlook or emotional intelligence it takes to be promoted, let alone start a successful company.

The best way to assure yourself a bright future, whether you decide to code or earn a “useful” degree, is to patronize your library as so many “self-made” folks did/do

Stay away from your area of expertise, instead wander sections of which you have no knowledge, select books randomly and read at every opportunity.

Image credit: Susanne Nilsson

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

I said Tuesday that I wasn’t holding my breath in hopes of change when it comes to harassment in the workplace.

I blamed two main reasons, one societal and the other legal, but KG sent me an article yesterday that diminish the likelihood even more.

The articles cite an annual survey done by First Round on various topics, such as hiring, compensation, funding, etc. Last year they added diversity and inclusion and this year they added questions about harassment.

The companies are venture-backed and from all over — the Bay Area, New York, Los Angeles and other parts of the US.

Every year, we survey as many venture-backed startup founders as possible to figure out what it’s like to run a technology company right now. This year, we got more responses than ever before — 869 — giving us an even more precise pulse on what entrepreneurs think, feel, fear, and value.

These founders are the bosses of tomorrow’s tech sector, which doesn’t bode well.

As you can see they aren’t kids who are likely to change their attitudes when they “mature.”

55% have been in business for three to five years. Nearly 60% have an all male board and slightly more than half say their team is “mostly male.”

Actions speak louder than words and most don’t have any formal policies regarding diversity and inclusion or harassment.

Maybe I’m missing something, but there’s nothing about the majority of these new “leaders” that changes my mind regarding the likelihood of real change.

Image credit: HikingArtist and First Round

I watched a movie tonight called, “The Circle”, staring Tom Hanks and Emma Watson. (A quick thank you to Amazon and Apple for finally allowing me to stream Amazon Prime to my Apple TV!).

If you have not seen the film it is about a tech company in the Bay Area. The company is basically a combination of Google, Amazon, Oracle, and any other major tech company wrapped up into one.

I won’t explain the whole plot, but one overriding theme is that the company knows everything about you.

Your health, likes, friend and family groups, credit history and so on. The company believes that with this knowledge they can help humans live their best selves.

That total transparency will lead an individual to the right path. Secrets are what breaks down society so they must be abolished.

Obviously this is a movie that has some truth in our reality, but is an extreme version of it.

However, it made me think about the current climate of sexual victims coming forward.

In almost all the cases that have been proven the events happened behind closed doors and in secret. The assaulter hid their actions behind a veil and it was only when the victim came forward that some justice was served.

I continue to be bemused that after the victim comes forward the assaulter will release a statement saying this was a mistake and they have learned from it, it shouldn’t define them and so on.

How could transparency have prevented all of this?

I am sure in some cases the acts would have never occurred. The offender would have thought it too risky or perhaps would not have considered it at all since there were no hidden places.

This is more a thought lesson, but I could see how some increased transparency would prevent this type of action.

We have all been victimized at some point. It could be as simple as a playground bully or something much worse. Humanity is not always kind.

However, I also love my privacy and want to live my life outside the view of others from time to time. How do we balance it all?

I’m not sure I have that answer yet, but will continue searching.

Flickr image credit: Alias 0591

Valeria Chuba is an intimacy coach (clinical sexologist) and has found three main responses by her male clients to the recent bevy of harassment complaints.

• Defensiveness
• Disbelief at the enormity and pervasiveness of sexual violence and misconduct
• Difficulty with empathizing

No surprises, but her commentary is interesting and useful.

In trying to figuring out how to interact with women many men are choosing the easy route.

… men who want to enact the “Pence rule” (avoiding socializing alone with any woman who is not one’s wife) do so at a potentially enormous cost to their female colleagues, their organizations, and themselves. In fact, the notion that some men are confused as to how to “mentor young women without harassing them” is a troubling comment on masculinity.

Easy, because it takes little effort from them, while further screwing (pun intended) women and “keeping them in their place” — which is below and away from men.

There’s a better way to monitor your words and actions.

Best, it’s a simple yardstick with which to measure them.

Ask yourself if you would say the words, use the tone, or perform the action on your mother, sister or any female relative.
Measure other men’s comments/tones/actions the same way.

Think about how you would feel if they were speaking to your mother/sister/grandma/etc. If it was your mom/etc. would you let it go or would you call them on it?

That simple mental test is an excellent guide for men who are worried about whether they or someone else is crossing the line.

That said, men also need to understand that women may still make the wrong assumption and take it the wrong way based on her previous experience with other men.

Not because it’s a bad yardstick, but because trust takes time — especially when dealing with systemic social problems.

So keep using the yardstick; share it with your team; embed it in your culture, be an active part of the (eventual) change.

Flickr image credit: Bill Smith

In response to a post by Ellen Pao in September I said I wasn’t holding my breath waiting for things to change.

Good thing I wasn’t.

What changed started with a post by Susan Fowler calling out Uber’s misogamist culture, which led to CEO Travis Kalanick’s firing, Gretchen Carlson sued roger Ailes and won, other women started coming forward with their own stories and then the entire #metoo thread on Twitter.

Next came the harassing men crying crocodile tears and saying how terribly sorry they are if their past actions caused any pain.

Talk about arrogant, unfeeling, ignorant, and purely self-focused.

Monday Sheryl Sandberg wrote an excellent post pointing out that harassment has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with power.

The 1992 presidential race was once summed up in a pointed phrase: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

Today, as headlines are dominated by stories about sexual harassment and sexual assault at work, a similar phrase comes to mind: “It’s the power, stupid.”

And that nothing would change until the white male power structure became more balanced.

She goes on to say,

It is my hope that as more employers put thoughtful, effective policies into place – and as more is done to punish the perpetrators – more people will come forward without fear. For too long, too many people have believed that there’s no point in reporting harassment – that nothing will happen, or worse, that it will negatively impact their career. And on the other side, some people are scared that their reputations will be ruined unfairly. Having a consistent and fair process that applies to everyone helps protect against both scenarios and restores a degree of faith in the system.

However, I don’t believe anyone has much faith as long as they are forced to take harassment complaints to arbitration.

A growing number of American companies are requiring workers as a condition of their employment to sign agreements that stipulate they must resolve a dispute with their employer through arbitration. This agreement is known as a mandatory arbitration clause.

It was Carlson whose lawyers found a way around it.

In signing her employment agreement 11 years prior, Carlson had agreed to resolve disputes with Fox News Channel through private arbitration. But she and her legal team found a way around this by suing Ailes personally.

But, as Sandberg says, you need to have a certain level of power to even consider moving on someone with more power — and enough money that you can survive for a while sans paycheck.

Private arbitration is good for companies, since the rules favor businesses and most arbitrators think of the companies as clients — and who bites the hand that feeds it?

Moreover, the results aren’t published, so, there is little blowback even in the rare cases when the company loses.

“This veil of secrecy protects serial harassers by keeping other potential victims in the dark, and minimizing pressure on companies to fire predators,” Carlson wrote for The Times.

The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2017, which is before the House Judiciary Committee and for which Carlson is an advocate, would prohibit employers from requiring arbitration.

But considering the men who make up our current Congress, let alone the current president who would have to sign it into law, I certainly won’t be holding my breath for this one, either.

Flickr image credit: caninhas

It’s amazing to me, but looking back over more than a decade of writing I find posts with information that is as useful now as when it was written.

Golden Oldies is a collection of what I consider some of the best posts during that time.

Three and a half years and nothing’s change. Not that I expected it to, but one always hopes. That said, my opinion hasn’t change. The only thing any of the men recently outed as harassers and worse are sorry for is being caught — not for their actions — which will make it harder to do it in the future, although I’m sure they will — people have very short memories

Join me tomorrow for a look at one of the major reasons nothing has changed and is unlikely to in the future.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

The more they stay the some.

Einstein said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.”

George Bernard Shaw said, “The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”

Both of these go a long way to explaining the unchanging culture that fosters gender harassment in the workplace, most prominently in STEM fields.

…666 responses, three quarters of them from women, from 32 disciplines, including anthropology, archaeology, biology and geology. Almost two-thirds of the respondents said they had been sexually harassed in the field. More than 20 percent reported being sexually assaulted. Students or postdoctoral scholars, and women were most likely to report being victimized by superiors.

Does a woman or minority in a leadership role actually have more ability to help level the playing field? Not hardly…

…when minorities and women behave in a way that calls attention to their race or gender characteristics — i.e. by advancing others like them — it separates them from other white male leaders, causing them to be devalued by their peers.

Schmoozing and small talk are considered lubricant in business negotiations, but they don’t work for women.

Men who engaged in small talk were likely to get positive ratings on questions about trust, overall impressions and solid foundations for a future relationship, (…)  When it came down to final offers, they were willing to give the men who chit-chatted nearly 8% more than they offered women who engaged in small talk.

Ben Horowitz, of Andreessen Horowitz, has a new book about startups and the Valley called The Hard Thing About Hard Things. There are exactly four women mentioned in the book and one is his wife.

In the first 90 percent of the book, I counted three females: a human resource staffer, a woman whose husband ran NetLabs, and Horowitz’s wife Felicia, a woman with “award-winning green eyes” whose focus seems to be family and her husband’s success. He doesn’t present a real-life female peer until four pages from the end, when he hires Margit Wennmachers, a marketing guru-turned-venture capitalist whom he dubs “the Babe Ruth of PR” and “Sultan of Swat.”

There are many anecdotal stories from women founders on the varied ways they are hit upon by potential investors, but this one in Forbes is first person sourced.

I met the author several months ago and was floored by the stories she had to tell about her dealings with mostly male investors. Like many men (as she writes), I knew women in tech faced a certain degree of chauvinism and harassment, but I’d had no idea it was so barefaced and routine, in an industry that thinks of itself as egalitarian and forward-looking.

In the real world, however, it seems that traction is the best way to stop investors from hitting on you.

Payal Kadakia, the founder of ClassPass, thinks it’s the fact that her startup has started to gain significant traction and now investors who once had an upper hand actually want a piece of her business. And they don’t want to say or do something that could mess up their chances.

In a 2009 post about repentance I wrote, “Repeating the behavior makes it obvious that there is no real remorse and that you see getting caught as the true offense.”

Or, in the words of Friedich Nietzsche,

“The consequences of our actions take hold of us, quite indifferent to our claim that meanwhile we may have ‘improved’.”

Flickr image credit: Wesley Fryer

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

Entrepreneurs are great, although I have to admit that the entitled, connected, mostly white, bros of Silicon Valley aren’t among the ones I like and respect.

And no matter how large the investment, high the valuation or great the returns, coming up with a new way to find a date/restaurant/cheap ticket for whatever or share your life (in order to believe you have one) I don’t find particularly impressive.

But I love those who solve real problems, whether for enterprise, healthcare, agriculture, and, especially, for our poor, beleaguered planet.

So I got a real kick out of seeing what  Arthur Kay, the UK founder of Bio-bean, is doing.

Most of the products his company makes from used coffee grounds are industrial, but they do have a consumer product called Coffee Logs (sadly not available in the US — yet).

Each carbon neutral Coffee Log is made from the grounds of 25 cups of coffee and contains about 20% more energy than wood – meaning it burns hotter and for longer than wood.

Now Bio-bean has teamed with Shell to produce biofuel.

The startup collects used coffee grounds from cafes, restaurants and factories, and transports them to its recycling facility. There, the grounds are dried before coffee oil is extracted.

The coffee oil is then blended with other fuels to create B20 biofuel, which can be used in diesel buses without modification.

Without modification, that’s huge and undercuts the biggest reason governments use to avoid greener options — cost of conversion.

And that doesn’t even factor in the benefits from not sending all those coffee grounds to the landfill.

The UK produces 500,000 metric tons of coffee grounds each year, but that pales in comparison to what is left in the US after making 400 million cups of coffee every single day.

Kay needs to bring his concept to the US—it would make quite a difference.

Image credit: HikingArtist and bio-bean

Here are two little attitude tweaks that can make a very large difference in your holidays.

The first is a minor mind tweak that I can tell you from personal experience works extremely well.

Don’t let your mind play second fiddle to your assumptions.

And this from Michael Jackson (and others throughout time).

If you want to make the world a better place look inside yourself and make a change.

Of course, both require a level of self-knowledge and self-discipline that many of today’s connected, distracted humans don’t have.

Image credit: Wendy Cope

Jim Stroup (@jimstroup) used to write a blog called Managing Leadership; the blog is gone, but his book of the same name is still available.

Jim understood the myth of leadership.

“…the cult of the superlative individual leader as the cure for our current difficulties,” but Jim also pointed out that those same cult members caused many of the problems.

“We will take the position here at the outset, then, that the family of definitions of leadership that we are discussing is that which incorporates the idea of ineffably sensed forward motion – profound vision, unfathomable wisdom or judgment, courageous decisiveness, a charismatic ability to attract followers, and the like.

After all, it is this type of leadership that we are being told we must place our faith in, so that its exemplars can grasp the reins firmly in their hands, and with reassuring sure-footedness steer we poor, benighted masses out of our barely perceived and dimly comprehended peril. Into which, let it be said again, those exalted exemplars’ predecessors led us.”

Wally Bock has often pointed out that leadership, in common with the emperor, has no clothes and that leadership “wisdom” fails dismally to live up to its name.

Today’s post is short, because it is linked to an important article that KG recently sent as a result of our comparing notes on the subject.

It’s important, because it takes a different, more realistic, look at leadership, as opposed to the traditional view as espoused by the leadership industry. (Yes, “leadership” is an entire industry as is accounting and law.)

The article highlights, as did Jim and Wally, the dangers of our obsession with leadership and those who claim its mantle.

Take the time to read it and, more importantly, think about it, share it, and make it a subject for discussion among your friends.

Image credit: Edvin J.