Gender equality at the top, why cooperation works and reverse innovation
Mending mindsets, balancing boardrooms
No one needs reminding that the number of women in senior positions is disproportionately low. Men monopolise management. Efforts have been made to reverse this, and genuine efforts, at that. Over the past couple of decades, companies have implemented a range of workplace innovations to get more women into top jobs – policies to support women with young children, networks to help women navigate their careers, formal sponsorship programmes to ensure professional development, and so on. The result? In most countries, women still only account for about 15% of boardroom and senior executive positions.
What is needed now, this McKinsey paper argues, is not more policy innovations, but a change of mindset. The authors call for a “systemwide … hard-edged approach”. Their action list includes the rigorous application of data in performance dialogues, target setting for female advancement and genuine sponsorship. Not rocket science, maybe, but not a quick-fix either.
There’s a sting in the tail: women’s own attitudes. Male chauvinism may be the root cause of boardroom imbalance, but it’s not the only one. Women, the authors maintain, start off being as ambitious as their male counterparts. Those who reach senior positions remain so. Yet too many women pass up opportunities for advancement, it’s alleged, either because of conflicting commitments, parenthood or risk aversion.
Amid the current economic uncertainties, it is not the easiest time to redress the balance. It’s never easy, though, as the statistics continue to show.
“Changing Companies’ Minds About Women” by Joanna Barsh and Lareina Yee, McKinsey Quarterly, September 2011.
The value of partnership
Sustainability practitioners have a broad brief. Everything from climate change to community development potentially falls within it. No company – not even the very biggest – can fully address the mega-issues facing the planet. Solutions must therefore be collaborative, according to current thinking.
That’s the background to this timely analysis of partnerships between non-profit organisations (NPOs) and social enterprises. The paper asks the basic question: “How can such collaboration lead to the creation of value?”
The authors develop an analytical framework that sets such collaborative alliances within a four-phase system: the formation of the relationship, relationship stages, partnering processes and partnering outcomes.
Quite apart from the paper’s overarching goal, corporate practitioners will find this initial collaborative value creation framework a useful tool with which to examine their existing or future NPO partnerships. The first component, for example, raises the question of the extent and form of initial interactions between the respective parties. Anyone with experience in the field will be aware of how issues such as resource dependency and linked interests play out over the long term.
As to the question of value creation, this occurs in different forms (philanthropic, transactional, integrative and transformational) and in varying areas (social, environmental and economic, among others). Likewise, the resultant value also manifests itself at numerous levels: what the authors describe as societal (macro), organisational (meso) and individual (micro). The eye of managers will be drawn to a lengthy discussion about methods for assessing such value. Defining respective perceptions of “value” is, the authors argue, critical to any future quantitative or qualitative assessment process. Tips on common mistakes – eg outcome subjectivity, evaluating intangible results, attributing specific outcomes to specific programmes, and so forth – will assist in anticipating problems down the road.
As more companies develop value-focused alliances with NPOs, the ability to define, measure and demonstrate value will be vital to the success of the approach. The methods and frameworks presented in this paper will increase the capacity of managers to make that happen.
“Value Creation in Business – Nonprofit Collaborations” by James Austin and M May Seitanidi, Harvard, Social Enterprise Series No 32, Working Paper 12-019, September 2011.
mHealth
mHealth. Ever heard of it? No? You would have done if you lived in a low-income country. More than three in every four of the world’s 5.3bn mobile phones are located in the developing world. Not only are they revolutionising communications (many poor countries still have limited fixed line capability), but they are shaking up access to health services too. mHealth applications range from data collection and disease surveillance to diagnostic support and remote patient monitoring.
Now tech firms and health experts are combining to bring such innovations back to rich nations – what General Electric’s chief executive Jeffrey Immelt calls “reverse innovation”. The authors use GE’s portable ultrasound device to illustrate the point. Conventional ultrasounds cost $100,000 or more. GE developed a model for the Chinese market that plugs into a laptop, with a price tag of $15,000. Its combination of low cost and high flexibility means it can be used outside the confines of large hospitals (in rural health clinics, example) and for a wide range of purposes (such as detecting enlarged livers or gallstones). Now GE is offering a handheld version for the US market. Price: less than $8,000.
“Opportunities in Mobile Health” by Jaspal Sandhu, Stanford Innovation Review, Fall 2011.
On campus
MIT’s Sloan Management Review has launched an innovation hub dedicated to social media’s impact on business. The social business hub will issue a free monthly update on developments in the area.
The University of New Hampshire and New Hampshire Businesses for Social Responsibility are introducing a professional certificate in corporate sustainability. The certificate programme is directed towards mid-level and senior professionals.