Warning: Fairly lengthy article, something of a rant, and I’m going to say “bullshit” quite a few times. Buckle up, buttercup…
In Guy Kawasaki’s book, Reality Check, he claims “Silicon Valley is a meritocracy like nowhere else.” Bullshit. Look at the lack of women, minorities, over-40. If it’s a meritocracy, then explain statistically impossible under-representation. Tech companies aren’t examples, they’re poster-children for how not to “do” diversity.
Diversity. Inclusion. As important as these words are, Tech just doesn’t get it. Even while company leaders tout the need to increase diversity for both business and social justice reasons and trip over each other trying to hire the biggest, baddest diversity guru, the better roles and big bucks are reserved for keepers of the bro culture. Considering that most of the industry is nearly evangelical about progressive change, it’s downright hypocritical.
Tech (Silicon Valley and other) needs to stop with the PR eyewash and public pronouncements of “We’ll do better, starting now!” It’s bullshit, and it’s growing tiresome. And it can’t simply be accidental or even anecdotal anymore; no metric-driven problem that mattered would be allowed to go on this long in the measure-everything world of technology, particularly that in the investor-or-VC-backed space.
Let’s start with some representative facts:
The U.S. population is approximately 51% female; Silicon Valley employs just 20% of women in technical positions.
African Americans make up 13.2% of the U.S. population; Silicon Valley employs less than 4% African Americans in technical positions.
Hispanics make up 17% of the U.S. population; Silicon Valley employs just over 4% Hispanics in technical positions.
Asians make up just over 6% of the U.S. population; Silicon Valley employs almost 40% Asians in technical positions.
Hispanics and African-Americans constitute a combined 14 percent of computer science and engineering graduates—but only 5 percent of the tech workforce.
Top universities turn out black and Hispanic computer science and computer engineering graduates at twice the rate the leading tech companies hire them. (read this one twice)
Tech companies have been promising to “get better” now for almost a decade. So, a seemingly fair question… how much improvement on the numbers of women and people of color?
How’s this for an answer… Nothing. Zip. Nada. Bupkis. Ok, in all fairness, some numbers have moved ever-so-slightly. But I guaran-damn-tee that the amount of movement would be called “remained flat” in any financial results analysis.
If one of these tech firms had a critical financial metric scrutinized by their Board, and was unable to improve that metric at all in two years… how deep of analysis would be in play to satisfy the Board? What do you think would happen to the executive team? Whacked, is what would happen. Adios amigos.
At Facebook, Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino (as EEO categories) remain substantially the same (2% and 4% respectively) as 2012, although Facebook’s headcount has grown almost 350% during that same time. 350%! Female employment is up a single percentage point during that same time.
In 2014, Facebook Diversity Czar Maxine Williams wrote “So at Facebook we’re serious about building a workplace that reflects a broad range of experience, thought, geography, age, background, gender, sexual orientation, language, culture and many other characteristics.”
Yeah… I’m calling bullshit.
Add to this the near assault-on-women going on. This pervasive environment of sexual harassment cannot exist in a vacuum. CEOs, when not the perpetrator (which seems to be common), know or permit such conduct. Investors turn a blind eye. VCs accept it as frat-boy shenanigans. Current examples include Uber’s Kalanick, Caldbeck of Binary Capital, Dave McClure at 500 Startups (and his subsequent bullshit apology).
This behavior is just the recent stuff, and only notable because it’s already in the news. As any who work in HR will tell you, if there’s “one or two,” there’s damned sure more.
Tell me again how diversity and inclusion within tech companies is a priority, and that they are doing “everything they can” to improve. Another bullshit call.
If I seem a bit ticked about this stuff, I am. And those who know me, know that I’m not a huge fan of diversity program efforts. But dammit, this is an industry who frequently holds itself up — and above others — as a beacon for social change and progressive improvement. And they’re frauds.
Here I am, in Houston Texas. Though incredibly diverse, many others don’t see my city in that regard. Saddled with the legacy of oil & gas and drilling mavericks, many believe that the good old boy network still runs at full speed here. It doesn’t, and as a matter of fact, Houston blows Silicon Valley out of the water when it comes to workplace diversity and inclusion.
According to the US Census Bureau to look in the valleys tech workforce is less than 3% black and just over 4% Hispanic. I’m from backwoods Houston, supposedly a bastion of good old boys (read: middle-aged white guys), and our tech workforce is 11.9% black and 12.6% Hispanic. We rank #1 for minority entrepreneurs.
In fact, almost every major metropolitan area in the country does a better job employing black and Hispanic tech workers than Silicon Valley. Houston, I think there’s a problem… in Silicon Valley.
And please, no crap about locally available talent. Silicon Valley has almost 3 times as many Blacks and Hispanics with degrees than employees, while employing four times the number of foreign nationals than black and Hispanic.
We cannot continue to accept microscopic improvements as advancement. I’ll say again: if tech executives and investors believed the poor diversity showing to actually be a major limiting factor to the company, they would put the effort and resources behind it and fix it. Until that occurs, we’ll just get more lip service.
Okay, why is this such an intractable challenge?
Personally, I doubt their sincerity. I don’t think they lay awake staring at the ceiling, agonizing over the lack of diversity at their organization. I think pledges they make publicly, and other idiotic moves like publicizing diversity goals, are simply an attempt to appear responsive to media accusations that racism and sexism just continue to permeate the tech industry.
In other words just a bunch of hooey.
I think it’s hysterical that some tech firms — Facebook, for example — actually blame the education pipeline for their inability to hire an equitably diverse workforce. Think about the sheer irony here… Mark Zuckerberg Facebook CEO is not a college graduate (nor is his cofounder Dustin Moskovitz). Bill Gates, Microsoft founder, another non-graduate, as is Tony Hsieh of Zappos.
Don’t even get me started about John Mackey, Larry Ellison, Michael Dell, Richard Branson, Howard Schultze or Walt Disney. I’m not advocating dropping out of college, but I am saying you cannot use lack of diverse college graduates—even if true—when most technology and innovation has come from non-college graduates.
It’s the culture, folks. It’s broken, and must be fixed, and morph into something where diversity and inclusiveness are absolutely central to the success of the organization. Making diversity a bolt on statistic to a workforce will simply not work. Negative messaging—incentives, threats—don’t work.
Compliance is not enough… a culture shift is required, and that can’t come solely through compliance. Some starting points:
Consequences matter. Both positive and negative.
HR must change the focus to conversations, dialog and the commitment to diversity as a success competency, not a best-places-to-work soundbite.
Candidate sourcing—change it, get better… This isn’t that difficult. You don’t recruit at a junior-college for ivy-leage graduates, because they aren’t there. Shift to target-rich sourcing environments.
Modify the culture to retain diverse employees. Issues must be able to be raised without consequence (opposite of Google’s latest debacle). Failure without fear. Mentorships and advisors readily available to all.
Money matters (always will)—but actions matter more. Show a commitment, don’t just keep talking about it.
This isn’t an all-inclusive list; nor is it some high-level, ultra-sophisticated rocket science. It’s problem solving 101, and it’s the same thinking process that drives revenue models, market approach and funding conversations. Apply it to diversity, if you believe it’s important.
If not, just shut up about it. I’m tired of you complaining, whining, promising, explaining and justifying failure. It’s bullshit, and enough is enough.
I’m a military veteran. As such, I frequently read old military books, discourses, and papers in an effort to compare corporate leadership today with historical military leadership. The similarities are astounding.
A 1941 book published by the Military Service Publishing Company is one such work. Edited by the staff, it has no specific author, but is a compilation of thoughts, ideas, suggestions and directives from a stream of notable military leaders. Some — just as an example — include the likes of General J.G. Harbord, who began as a private in the Spanish-American war, achieved prominence as General Pershing’s Chief of Staff, and later commanding the USMC’s 2nd Division before assuming the Chairmanship of the RCA Corporation.
Just an example of the caliber of input for this book…
In this book, Chapter II discusses “Orientation.” Of course, it is meant to apply mostly to new officers at a new post or assignment. Truth is, the advice given there — some 65+ years ago to junior officers — is as appropriate today for first time managers as it is senior-most leadership.
Sections and brief summaries include:
Your Brother Officers: “The commissioned officers of the U.S. military are a cross-section of the American Public… as a group, they are subject to the same ambitions, variations in viewpoint, and human frailties as the people they serve.”
This, of course, matches up with our corporate situations today. Managers and leaders have different backgrounds and experiences, bringing different thought-processes and judgment. When harnessed for the common good, this is an excellent trait, one we should exploit, not suppress. Different thinking means more choices. More choices usually means better decisions. Or, as many would put it — embrace your wierdness.
Performance of Duty: “In the military, the performance of duty to the limit of one’s capacity is a fetish. Striving for perfection is more than a figure of speech… as you demonstrate your capacity for additional responsibility, it will come to you… be not impatient… there is much to learn.”
Wow, is this appropos or what…? Work hard, smart, and consistent. Do what you say you’ll do. Make well-thought decisions. Those of you who have achieved significant corporate rank: Did you get there through politics, trickery, and slight-of-hand, or was it hard work, diligence, and sacrifice??
This stuff really works.
Get Out, or Get in Line: “Mind your business. If the concern where you are employed is all wrong, and the Old Man a curmudgeon (I like that word), it may be well for you to go tell the Old Man, confidentially, privately, and quietly, that he is a curmudgeon. Explain to him that his policy is absurd and proposterous. Then show him how to reform his ways, and offer to lead the effort to cleanse the faults. Do this, or if for any reason you should prefer not, then take your choice of these: Get Out, Or Get In Line.
If you work for a man, in heaven’s name, work for him! Speak well of him, think well of him, stand by him and the institution he represents.
If put to the pinch, an ounce of loyalty is worth more than a pound of cleverness. If you must vilify, condemn, and eternally disparage, why, resign your position and, when on the outside, damn to your heart’s content.”
This quotation is so appropriate in corporate management today that it needs no explanation, segue, or pithy remarks from me. Simply put — work for whomever you work for. Grammatical errors aside, you get my point. Don’t we all get tired of those who work “for” us part of the time, and “against” us the rest?
Importance of the Word ‘NO’: “As an officer, many questions will come to you for decisions… the choice you make in the mere act of saying “yes,” or “no,” may constitute the measure of your success. A weak man can say “yes” to troublesome situations, dissipating the efforts of the whole. An unwise man can say “no,” and by mere obstruction, cause the failure of the unit. It takes a happy combination of courage and wisdom to be able to say “no” at the right time and place.”
Simply put, our most significant, regular responsibility — day to day and strategic — is making decisions. Anyone can make the easy ones… they seldom take forethought, intellect, or wisdom, since they are usually painfully obvious and accolades are near. No, they pay us for the hard ones. The lonely decisions. The times when we make the “right” decision in the face of dissent and conflict, and where the easier decision is to abide with consensus. That’s why they pay us the bucks, and give us these fancy business cards.
Adaptability: “Adaptability is required. Leadership is a new and different life. He must be equally quick to detect and avoid those things which are abhorrent to military life… the road to recognition and fame may lie ahead. How well and how quickly the opportunities are embraced depends upon the promptness of adapting himself to the new horizons the career provides.”
You can’t always spell out the details of a leadership role in a nice, convenient job description. Our worlds are dynamic, fluctuating, and ever-changing. We’ve got to know when to “stay the course,” and when to turn on a dime. All the while keeping those looking to us for leadership engaged in our path. This is what sets us apart.
I only provided these today for two reasons. First, a reminder: Leadership — it’s theories, concepts, and approaches, really haven’t changed since the beginning of man. Yes, some applications of principles have evolved over time, given our changing workforce, demographics, and societal norms. The real concepts and basis of leadership, however, remain constant.
And lastly, we can learn a lot from simplicity. Sometimes we make this stuff too hard, when we could get to the same place — maybe even a better place — with approaches that embrace simplicity and ease of thought.
Mehran Assadi is an island in shark-infested waters.
Assadi leads National Life Group, the fastest growing life insurance company in the country over the last decade with, according to Scott Mautz’s article in Inc., employee engagement levels and agent retention four times the industry average.
Read that again… Retention four times the industry average. How much is that worth? Damn.
How does he do it? Simple. He says “people first.”
“Wait,” you say. “That’s nothing new, Kevin.” Yeah, well, what is new is that he means it. He lives it. And he leads from that singular position.
Assadi steadfastly insists that their culture is bigger than individuals, and bigger than him; it is tangible and shows up at the top line, bottom line, and every measure in between. He claims their culture is the secret sauce to their success. It’s not perfection—it’s learning as they go, and they are getting better every day.
Now, keep in mind that this guy is working with a 150+ year-old company here. This isn’t some upstart start-up trying to make it big. It’s an established organization in an industry not exactly known for brilliant innovation or trend-setting in the culture department.
He’s a big believer in servant leadership, insisting that leadership is a privilege, not a right or entitlement. There’s some cutting-edge thinking, Lou, and uncommon insight for a financial services CEO. Further, he insists people care for–and know—themselves.
To quote Assadi, “When you find your ‘why,’ you find your way.”
Six years ago, he started a once-a-year process of collecting feedback for their top 200 leaders, from at least 20 people each, on how they were faring as a servant leader. Not coincidentally, the same year they started doing this, sales began increasing every year–by double digits.
Go figure.If all that’s not enough, he shows the LOVE. In fact, L.O.V.E. at National Life Group has come to mean “Live Our Values Everyday”.
Nice touch, Mehran, and a big reason you are July’s Leadership Leader.
Leadership Milquetoast
PepsiCo Inc.’s longtime honcho Indra Nooyi is sort of shooting herself in the foot.
Now, before anyone leaps prematurely, I’ve been a fan of hers for some time. She’s been solid, a progressive and people-centric CEO, and kicked serious butt in financial performance. There are precious few women in that Fortune 100 role (7, at last count), and she’s had the chair long enough to damn sure prove her mettle. In corporate performance, at least. In succession planning? Not so much…
You know, the better you perform, the more that is expected. And it’s logical for expectations for Nooyi to be high. And her recent announcement/non-announcement of a promotion was clearly not her best work.
Congratulations go out to Ramon Laguarta, currently grand poobah at PepsiCo’s Europe and sub-Saharan Africa business, as he transitions to the company’s President role. The gig includes global operations, corporate strategy, public policy and government affairs, not a small swath of responsibilities.
Then, she simply dropped the ball, announcing that Mr. Laguarta shouldn’t be presumed her successor. “There is no heir apparent,” she said. “When the time comes for succession, whenever it is, I think the wonderful thing is our board is going to have so many people to choose from.”
Yeah, well, I’m calling bullshit. This is a lousy way to plan for succession, and she should know it; she already lost a couple of key CEO-contenders. During Nooyi’s 11-year ride, two viable successors have been promoted into that No. 2 role, and subsequently left the company.
Look, Nooyi’s only 62, so there’s no dramatic rush for succession. But you can’t promote the best, tell them to sit still, and tell the world “this means nothing, long-term,” and expect them to stick around quietly with their thumbs up their derriere waiting for your eventual career plans to be revealed. Talent management—succession planning—simply doesn’t work that way. You don’t have to promise them the job, but to take special effort to say “he’s not the guy” is a bit much, and counterproductive.
That President job has been vacant since the 2014 departure of Zein Abdalla, someone clearly identified as “shortlisted to become chief executive.” He kept the role for two years before his abrupt, unscheduled retirement, which occurred shortly after Nooyi lost Brian Cornell to Target (another identified successor). Before Abdalla, John Compton stayed as Pepsico President for less than a year, before assuming the CEO of Flying J Oil Corp.
Houston, we have a problem. Nooyi has to develop a process for developing and promoting within a non-guaranteed succession plan, that motivates potential successors to stick around, not bolt for the door.Saying, “he ain’t the guy,” is likely not the way to do that. You’re better than that, Indra Nooyi, and this strange non-succession succession plan makes you this month’s Leadership Milquetoast.
Leadership Laggard
Steve Ells, Chipotle’s CEO is in hot water—again—for contaminated food. This time, 135 or so sick customers, with at least two contracting the norovirus. This marks the 7th – SEVENTH – incidence of norovirus disease contracted at Chipotle since October 2015.
The SEVENTH!
That’s not even counting their other woes, like poor financial performance (apparently caused by guacamole. Seriously), and their massive data breach just a few months ago.
Crap like this, folks, does not occur in a vacuum. Generally, when leadership is poor, it shows in multiple areas, not just operational performance. I believe we can safely say that Chipotle leadership is poor.
This piece is short; we covered much of this when Steve was our Milquetoast in January, but thanks to 135 more sick people, he’s “done graduated” to our Leadership Laggard for July… Congrats, Steve.
I coach several individuals; most at a fairly senior level, some in mid-management.
Some are remedial efforts; in other words, we’re trying to get an otherwise-valuable employee to step it up a bit in performance. These are challenging, but it’s positively great to watch the progress.
The rest are for those already operating near the top of their game. Those folks for whom we’re trying to give them that “extra” edge. That 1% improvement for which, in their hands, makes a significant difference in the success of the business. (more…)
Someone recently asked me why the Performance Management process seems so painful in many organizations. They further questioned how lower-level managers could possibly implement effective performance management if the senior executive(s) are less than fully compliant themselves.
Man, oh man, do I have an opinion on this…
First, lower level leaders in an organization don’t get a free pass simply because some senior executive isn’t up to par. Leadership accountability is bigger than a simple reporting relationship.
If subordinate managers got an accountability “walk” every time more senior leaders were errant, we’d have but one or two accountable people in every organization, followed by a bunch of well-paid drones.
Sorry, Charlie. You have the position, you cash the check, and you have the personal accountability.
Next, performance management isn’t really difficult at all; most reasonably successful leaders/managers do some form of this on a regular basis. Think about it – for those who do not have a real formal process, do you still work on employees to improve their performance? For those who are late turning in those annual reviews to HR, have you been ignoring your employees all this time?
Of course not.
It’s the review process that’s typically broke all to hell. And frankly, that’s a system issue, not (necessarily) a leadership failing. In other words, most performance reviews exist, not for performance management, but for performance management documentation.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but we too often attempt to have those reviews do so much more than documentation. And if we do that without training all involved (both sides of the review equation) and without fully institutionalizing the process, well, we get what we usually get.
GIGO at its finest.
If an organization is reasonably successful, there’s probably a decent amount of effective performance management occurring.
Further, if that reasonably successful organization has a painful performance review process, then we should stop that right now… the review process should aid in performance management, not merely memorialize it for posterity.
A 1941 book published by the Military Service Publishing Company is one such work. Edited by the staff, it has no specific author, but is a compilation of thoughts, ideas, suggestions and directives from a stream of notable military leaders. Some — just as an example — include the likes of General J.G. Harbord, who began as a private in the Spanish-American war, achieved prominence as General Pershing’s Chief of Staff, and later commanding the USMC’s 2nd Division before assuming the Chairmanship of the RCA Corporation.
