True or false? Behind every great [married] woman is a great man

Sheryl Sandberg, speaking at a conference, said the advice she often gives women is,  “The most important career choice you’ll make is who you marry.”  Based on my experience, she’s right and still, I feel a bit of a twinge of disappointment (resentment?) that comes from the awareness that you won’t hear a man saying the most important career decision a man makes is whom he chooses to marry.   The only place that is true appears to be in politics.  We do hear that someone chooses not to run because his wife did not want to deal with the constant exposure to public scrutiny.  That was one of the reasons Colin Powell did not run for President.  [Herman Cain's withdrawal from the race is something else....].

I know many executive women; those who are married usually have husbands who are totally supportive.  In several cases, the men have taken on responsibility for running the household so their wives can pursue their careers.  In others, the men have taken jobs that allow more flexibility so they can be available to handle emergencies involving the children or household as needed.

When interfacing with men in the work environment, I have found that men with wives who are actively engaged in their own careers interact with me more effectively.  That is, I feel totally accepted as a professional without regard to gender.  My hypothesis is that the ongoing interaction with their wives reshapes their unconscious stereotype of women.  [Note, I truly believe when bias occurs that negatively impacts women, the vast majority of the time it is unconscious.  Society does a great job of conveying a sense of how things "should" be. ]

Similarly, men with daughters are often more likely to be concerned about the ability of women to succeed in their chosen fields.  Recent research in Denmark found that in companies where the CEO had a daughter, the wage gap between men and women employees was smaller than in companies where the CEO did not have a daughter.  Whether it’s the ongoing interactions with their daughters or the ambition for them that’s subtly shaping their views  (or both)-it’s a positive sign.

What are your thoughts about the importance of a woman’s choice of husband as a major factor in her career?

Gender differences when they hack your brain

The September issue of Fast Company has an article titled, “They Have Hacked Your Brain“.  ”They” refers not to aliens but to companies hoping to design products, services, and/or marketing materials that will grab your attention and lead you to buy- by studying your brain.  NeuroFocus is providing an alternative to focus groups using its Mynd device to measure the brain’s reaction to different stimuli.  In other words- this is an example of applied neuroscience.  Some convincing evidence is presented on the effectiveness of this methodology.

One paragraph, however, caught my attention for a different reason.  It described a test NeuroFocus did for Intel.  Using a small sample of men and women in Berkeley and a mid-sized town in China,  EEGs of subjects were measured as they viewed words that flashed on a screen at intervals of half a second.  As described in the article, one of the findings was (this is a direct quote):

Interestingly, women in the U.S. and in China had virtually the same response post-advertisements, as did American men and Chinese men. The differences were in the genders; on both sides of the pond, men and women had strikingly different reactions. “Achieve” prompted the most intense reaction among women, while men gravitated toward “opportunity.”

What intrigued me about this statement?  First, many women truly believe that business is a meritocracy – work hard, achieve great results and you get promoted.  In reality, success is a function of doing good work and self-promoting, working the system, and using one’s networks.  Hence- how interesting that both the American and Chinese women had intense reactions (as measured by their EEGs) to the word “achieve”.

Second, both the American and Chinese men reacted strongly to the work “opportunity.”   Perhaps seeing more potential for an upside- as is implied by “opportunity”- supports men’s tendency to be more willing to take risks than many women.   The study that was cited did not include the word “challenge”.  I wonder what response that would have been elicited from both the men and the women.   But then- neither the test nor the article was about gender so -why would that have been added?

Just consider it food for thought.

Examples of how diverse individuals can create great change

In my last post, I wrote about the speakers at the closing ceremony for the 2011 graduates of Singularity University.  I promised a follow-up post about the students’ projects- each one designed to alleviate a major global issue.

In the meantime, I came across Dean Takahashi’s article: Singularity University graduates a class of tech world changers which gives great descriptions of the projects. Rather than repeat what he’s written, I refer you to his article.  While all the projects were impressive, my favorites were Matternet and Ignisolar.

Matternet will provide rapid access to medical supplies for people in regions which lack roads using a network of small autonomous flying devices.  They produced a short video (which is on their website) that clearly illustrates the need for such a system and the value of their solution.   It’s a unique approach to a problem that faces billions of people around the world.

Ignisolar created the Concentrated Photovoltaic Solar panel- a lightweight, transportable, easily assembled, flexible and affordable passive solar system.   They’ve designed it to allow local distribution, installation and maintenance.  I am trying to connect them to the Barefoot Solar Engineers – a group which I thought I had blogged about before but, looking back, appears I didn’t.  So- will do so in the near future.

I hope for their sakes- and the world’s- all the teams experience great success with their projects.

Thoughts on innovation, entrepreneurship, & changing the world

Last Friday I had the opportunity to attend the closing session for Singularity University‘s 2011 Graduate School Program. Speakers included Ray Kurzweil and Peter Diamandis (co-founders of Singularity U), Reid Hoffman, and Vinod Khosla along with overviews of the student’s projects.  For now, I’ll highlight some of the comments made by Hoffman and Khosla.  In my next post, I’ll cover some of the projects.

Reid Hoffman, founder & now Executive Chair of LinkedIn as well as an investor at Greylock, shared his ways of determining what is worth investing in.  His assessments are based on answers to these questions:

• What hypotheses, if they were true, could impact billions of lives?
• How do you see what other people don’t? [Although he didn't say it-it's been shown that experts often know what can't be done until someone does it]
• What lever can you construct to change the world?
• How can you apply this to your life?
• How can it scale?

Vinod Khosla‘s talk echoed some of those ideas.  He started with the finding that treating critically ill people with high fever who were given aspirin were more likely to die that those who did not receive aspirin.  Counter-intuitive?  Yes.  But until that research, it was standard procedure to give such patients aspirin because…. well, they had always done so.  Experts often don’t know what they don’t know. This led to his sharing other examples of why you should not believe forecasts.  Experts often use precision of methodology or model as a poor substitute for accuracy.  One study looked at the accuracy of political judgements made by 80,000 experts over a 20 year period.  In Vinod’s words:  ”the accuracy was poorer than forecasts of dart-throwing monkeys.” Now there’s an interesting image!

He also went on to say that “willingness to fail is the single  biggest factor in my being able to succeed.  Willingess to fail gives us the freedom to succeed.”  [This struck me as particularly interesting given the response I had to a workshop I had recently posted talking about the importance of learning to fail as a key to success.  You wouldn't believe some of the hostile reactions I had to the description.  Must have pushed someone's button!]

One of his last points was to be wary of inconsistent ideas.  For example, there was a proposal to replace cattle with kangaroos for meat because kangaroos presumably fart less and therefor are less hazardous to the environment.  He also sees electric cars as inconsistent since they need electricity which takes oil or other limited resources to power them.  He didn’t talk about hybrids- but I’ve heard lots of mixed reactions to them.  People who own them love them;  they are clearly more efficient on the road than the average gas-powered car.  The downside is the need to ship heavy parts long distances to manufacture the car and the limited life of the battery which will ultimately need to be disposed of- create a different type of environmental impact.  I suspect this would be viewed as inconsistent.  An example of a truly consistent concept he shared was a company called Ciris Energy which has a clean way to convert coal to natural gas without taking it out of the ground.

One can only imagine what is next.

Women at the Frontier

Last week, I had the privilege of participating in Singularity University‘s Women at the Frontier program.  The keynoter, Marylene Delbourg-Delphis and each panelist was asked to talk about the source of her power and her advice on how to positively impact one billion people.

One of the interesting things I noticed was that each presenter, myself included, felt like the others were more impressive than she was.  I can’t say I’m surprised but it reinforced my belief that as women, we often undervalue our own endeavors and successes.  It’s part of the reason so many women hold themselves back from their own greatness.

Who were the other women?  Marylene is a serial entrepreneur whose background was in philosophy with an interest in the history of fashion and fragrance. After moving to the US from France, she co-founded ACIUS with Guy Kawasaki- the first of several successful high tech ventures.  She has used her experience to help new entrepreneurs find their success.

I’ve already written about Sandra de Castro Buffington.  I had recommended her as a panelist (in part as an excuse to have some more time with her).

I sat next to Lt. Col. Jacquelyn Susan “Jackie” Parker- first woman Air Force Test Pilot- trained in over 25 types of aircraft.  This was after she graduated college at 17 with a degree in computer science and became NASA’s youngest full-fledged mission controller.  Asked what her source of power was she said- 300 pounds of thrust(!).  Can’t top that.

Then came Courtney Macavinta, founder of Respect Institute.  She talked about her rough childhood, surrounded by poverty, substance abuse,  people in prison, violence.  Rather than fall victim to the vicious cycle, she pushed herself to find self-respect, graduated college, and directed  her energies to solving the problems she had experienced.  The impact of the institute (as stated on its website): Since 2005, we’ve empowered millions of youth, families and their influencers (educators, advocates, policymakers and organizations) to use The Respect Basics to thrive vs. getting trapped in cycles of disrespect such as bullying, violence, abuse, unhealthy relationships, risky behaviors and low self-esteem.  In other words- she’s well on her way to helping a billion people.

Last and certainly not least, there was Joy Buolamwini.  A self-declared Ghanadian (born in Canada to parents from Ghana), she has started several companies related to web design, mobile apps and/or gaming.  She’s already helped thousands by creating  tech tools to help fight trachoma in Ethiopia, leading a software teaching initiative in Zambia and building a site to promote computing summer camps  for high school-age students. Oh- and she’s 25 years old.  Talk about awesome.

I truly believe that women are a force for positive change in the world. Thank you to the women of Singularity U for taking on the challenge and encouraging others to do the same.

Everything old is new again…

Last night I attended a meeting of Silicon Valley Innovation Institute about raw food.  I had heard of the phenomenon and was curious to learn about and sample it.  The food, prepared by Jillian Love, was delicious.  We did learn that one needs a really good food processor in order to be a raw food chef.

During the evening we heard several speakers talk about the healing effects of eating organically grown produce, prepared fresh, uncooked.  One had healed himself from rheumatoid arthritis.  Another spoke about a documentary (this is an excerpt) showing how a small group of Type 2 Diabetes patients were effectively cured of the disease (and all the secondary illnesses) by being put on a completely raw food diet for 30 days.  By cured- I mean- no more insulin or any other drugs.  While I have long believed in the health impacts of food, showed a much greater effect than I expected.  During the evening, two points struck me:

1)  In the beginning, mankind began by eating fresh organic uncooked food.  No artificial fertilizers, insecticides, freeze- dried, deep-fried, or hybridized produce of any kind. In our attempt to increase yield and shelf-life of foods while decreasing exposure to pests and disease, we have added chemicals to the ecosystem which have polluted the foods we eat as well as the soil in which it is grown.  The raw food movement is, at some level, an attempt to return to that “cleaner”, simpler form of nutrition.

2) The system resists change. As described, the doctors of these people were often unwilling to believe that a massive change in diet could be life-altering to this degree.  In today’s world, the idea of raw food seems radical- a deviation from the norm.  You could say it’s an innovation.  And as often happens- things out of the main stream are rejected by “experts” who know better.

It reminds me of the story of Dr. Barry Marshall who had research that showed ulcers were caused NOT by stress (as it was known to be) but by bacteria.  So radical was his idea that he could not get funding to do human trials.  In order to advance his work, he infected himself to prove his case. He and his colleague, Robin Warren, were eventually awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2005.

You may be wondering- am I now going to go on a completely raw food diet?  Not unless I can get my husband to do the work.  [I don't cook.  Ever.]  That said, my normal diet consists of a lot of raw fruits and vegetables (one of the benefits of living in California) along with low fat dairy products and a small amount of beef, chicken and fish.  Turns out – dairy foods would have to be off the list and I’d find that harder than giving up meat.  But I am more mindful of what I put in my mouth.  Maybe when I retire, I’ll learn how to cook raw and will reform my ways.  After all, it’s never too late to learn.

Solar Flare- The Energy Bar for Nerds

I’ve been attending Space Frontier Foundation’s New Space 2011 Conference at NASA Ames.  Most of the almost 400 attendees are involved with commercial space – that is privately owned companies like SpaceX, Moon Express, XCor, OpenLuna and/or educational organizations like Students for Exploration and Development of Space (SEDS) or Space Travelers Emporium.

But one of the highlights was the business plan competition held yesterday and which, because of a conflict, I missed. Everyone I talked to asked what I thought of the HS girls’ pitch.  (Mind you – most of the presenters were a whole lot older). They were kind enough to sit down with me for an interview.

Shannon (15) & Mikayla (16), Co-founders of Solar Flare

These teenage sisters- Shannon (15)  and Mikayla (16) Diesch, co-founders of Solar Flare- had blown everyone away with their product and their pitch for an energy bar that feeds the brain as well as the body.  The bar was originally designed to be used as a supplement for space travel. They had come up with the idea to compete for the Conrad Foundation Spirit of Innovation Award in the Space Nutrition Category  (which they won in April 2010). Based on their success – and the bar’s being flown on Space Shuttle Endeavour the girls decided they wanted to commercialize it which required reformulation to make it suitable for mass production.

So what’s so different about it?  The main source of nourishment for the brain is Omega-3 with DHA being the most beneficial.  Most products with Omega-3 contain ALA of which only 30% is converted to DHA.  They wanted to include DHA in the product.  The problem is that it tastes and smells like fish.  Not exactly a yummy addition to a snack bar.  The trick was finding a way to isolate the DHA and stabilize it so it could be included in a food bar that would have a shelf life of more than a couple of days.  They  experimented repeatedly until they discovered it.  They now have a patent pending.

Both girls are interested in math and science.  Self-described “nerds”, they’re calling the commercial product the Nerd Bar.  In addition to being smart, articulate, and totally delightful they are traveling around to speak to schools encouraging students to pursue STEM education.  It’s something they believe is important and they (with their parents’ help- driving them around the country to engagements) are using their success to inspire others.

So here’s to a couple of innovative entrepreneurial sisters who are succeeding at every level.

Hollywood, Health and Society (HHS)- PT. 2: Examples of using TV for good

Sandra de Castro Buffington at WFS 2011

In my last post, I wrote about Sandra de Castro Buffington who heads Hollywood, Health & Society.  I promised a piece where Sandra described things in greater detail.  In this audio clip, Sandra provides some detailed examples of how TV has been used to increase awareness of health and safety issues:  Sandra–de-Castro-Buffinton_WF2011_  The results have been very impressive.

Hollywood, Health and Society (HHS)- PT. 1: Turning TV and films into tools for change

The best session I attended at World Future Society was called “Conscious Evolution”.  The overall theme was leveraging the arts and broadcast media to create positive change in society.  Who knew? One of the panelists was Sandra de Castro Buffington, Director of Hollywood Health & Society program at the USC Annenberg Norman Lear Center.  A scientist by training, she has devoted her life to working on projects [many award winning] that educate and bring about new behaviors to improve health in underdeveloped regions. Surprised when first recruited to be director of this organization that involved working with Hollywood producers and script writers, Sandra realized the power of the position to make change.

Working in conjunction with CDC and other medical resources, she and her small staff provide script-writers and producers with stories about physical, mental, and emotional traumas that they can weave into their storylines if they so choose.  Two shows HH&S often partner with are House and Grey’s Anatomy [confession;  I'm a big fan of both].  When story lines play out, the show’s website provides information to viewers who want to learn more about the disease or injury- where to go for help and what to do in the meantime.  Maybe you’d expect that for these medical shows.  But it goes beyond them.   She talked about one of their biggest successes:  a subplot in Bold & the Beautiful where one of the main characters finds out he is HIV positive and eventually tells his fiance.  When the story appeared on TV,  the CDC HIV hotline received record-setting number of calls.

Wanting to raise awarenesss about the plight of people in 3rd world countries, Sandra arranged for a field trip for a small group of writers and producers to some of the poorest areas of South Africa and India.  As she told me, she had spent years living in communities without running water in remote regions but these conditions were worse.  People lived in the garbage dumps, rummaging for food.  The group met girls who had been caged and forced to work as prostitutes.  The impact was profound- probably  life-altering for this Hollywood group.  Don’t be surprised if you find these stories appearing in one form or another woven into TV or movie plots.

I want to share more about Sandra- but in her own words.  I’ll be posting a video with part of my interview with Sandra within the next couple of weeks.

The fault lies not in us but in all those other forces…

As anyone who’s ever tried to lose weight, quit smoking, or stop procrastinating knows- our best intentions often go astray.  That’s why we often take two steps forward and one (or more) steps back.  Yesterday, I heard a PBS RadioLab segment entitled “Help!” What do you do when your own worst enemy is you?” which noted that a key to the problem is our desired outcome relates to our future state whereas the temptation is in the present.  ”Now” usually has more power over us than “later”.  They interviewed people who had overcome their undesireable habits (like smoking) by bringing the future into the present, creating short term punishments.  One woman who had been active in helping bring about Civil Rights for blacks in her youth, kicked her lifelong smoking addiction by swearing to donate  $5000 to the Ku Klux Klan if she ever smoked again. She said the thought of having to give money to that group was such a powerful deterrent that she was able to quit cold turkey.  In Russia, there’s a doctor who offers to subcutaneously insert a capsule into people desperate to overcome their drinking problem.  Should they take a drink, the capsule releases a drug that makes them feel deathly ill.  In order to make sure they know what they’re in for, the doctor administers a tiny dose so they get to see just what the consequences will be if they drink.   The patient determines how long the capsule remains active (from months to years) to how long the symptoms will last (from hours to weeks). Talk about scaring yourself sober.

Earlier in the week, I had attended a TEDxBayArea talk by Joseph Grenny, co-author of the newly released Change Anything.  The book deals with the same issue:  how to overcome our own resistance to change- even when it’s a change we choose to make.  The basic premise is that it’s not lack of willpower but, rather, a confluence of personal, social and structural forces that “outnumber” us- keeping us doing what we’ve been doing.   Based on the research behind the book, Grenny described 3 factors that were common to people who successfully created the desired change.  First- bringing the the costs/rewards into the now.  That’s basically what the smoker in the RadioLab segment did.  The second was treating yourself like a third party.  The Russian solution to stop drinking was, in a way, making yourself a third party since the capsule would activate on its own in the case of drinking.  The third factor was the ability of people who succeeded at changing to turn “bad days into good data”.  No example of that in the radio segment.

Why am I interested in all this?  Personally- I have a few behaviors I’d like to change (like procrastinating on writing my book).  The second is to be better able to support people struggling to overcome their risk-aversion or fear of failure in order to free their personal creative genius.

If you are struggling to change a behavior- how can you bring the rewards or punishments forward?  What would it mean to treat yourself like a 3rd party?  Who might be able to help you?