Social software encourages the formation of networks, not hierarchies. With networks, the more effort an individual puts in, the more the individual is rewarded if s/he is adding value. This subverts hierarchical filtering of information and gives more influence to the contributors adding the most value. In healthy, well-functioning organizations, this will be seen as a great thing because it speeds the flow of information, discovery, and expert identification – and increases the productivity of the organization as a whole. This also allows for a evolution in resource allocation in that as individuals display passion and expertise for certain topics, they will increasingly be assigned to projects that need that expertise – in effect letting individuals determine more of the work that they take on versus being assigned.

The transparency and recognition that comes as part of social technologies also allows managers to have a better understanding of who their most valuable contributors are rather than having to rely in part on bluster… with information silos where it is hard to judge the effort and value of information being generated by people, managers often have to rely on their own subjective impressions and those can be swayed greatly by individuals’ abilities to self-promote and be squeaky wheels. I’ve been on both sides of that equation – I’ve benefited as someone who puts things out there and I’ve managed people who are personally assertive. Sometimes it is backed up with output and sometimes not… but it can be hard to distinguish and even harder to quantify. Social software does still reward the ’social’ but it is also easy to see if the chatter is backed up with good content or if it is just chatter.

Social software also rewards more than one type of contributor. Certainly content creators get recognized but so to do those that filter good content and contribute liquidity to the network – people who actively recognize and promote others. That type of persona is often the one least recognized and explicitly valued by information hierarchies although anyone ‘in the know’ typically knows who those people are and uses them extensively to find out what’s going on within an organization. They are often people lowest on the hierarchy and often fairly quiet themselves but they listen, observe, and share with anyone who is interested.

So why does all this matter so much to me? I think the transparency forces honest assessment – for both individuals and organizations – that ultimately improves them. I think it allows hard work and quality to be rewarded faster. I think it makes people happier because their skills and interests become better aligned with the work they do. I think it allows for people who may not have political skills but are excellent contributors to be more justly rewarded. I think it vastly increases the productivity of organizations. I believe information and relationships are society’s most important assets… and I think social software has the ability to make us more humane again. It’s a win-win-win-win-win… and who doesn’t like that?

As someone with a background in technology, product management, and software I’ve often been the lone woman on management teams or in engineering design sessions. I’ve experienced very few overtly sexist issues and, for the most part, I’ve been treated fairly and on my own terms. Having gone to a women’s college I am certainly aware of a variety of gender-related issues but have always been hesitant to get involved in women’s professional groups. Why? Gender is such a nuanced issue in today’s world. Sure, it’s been difficult to establish high trust relationships with some of my male colleagues and I have a lot of conflicting and stressful tugs at my time that I have a hard time juggling but I know many men who share those issues. I’ve also had some wonderful relationships with male colleagues – from early mentors to my current business partner Jim Storer. Making the issues of women and leadership an us vs. them situation is just not helpful. It’s not that simple.

Having said all of that, I think women – with all of our many priorities – probably have a different perspective on technology and why it is important. From personal experience I am less likely to enjoy technology for its own sake than the men I know – it can be cool but it has to be practical or helpful for me to use it regularly. So I believe there is a different perspective that women bring to how technology integrates with our lives and our businesses – but it’s often subtle. The concept of Technically Women intrigued me as an opportunity to collaborate with a bunch of whip-smart woman who have interesting perspectives on technology and to see if, over time, that collective ‘voice’ can be better articulated. But really, we are a bunch of technology professionals that just happen to be, technically, women. It’s an opportunity for me to share my love of technology, its potential, and its limitations and collaborate with some great people.

Looking forward to it!
Rachel Happe

In my experience, here’s how what women know translates into business performance:

• Women know high risk comes with high potential upsides and high potential downsides. We tend not to get overly excited about what could be and focus on what can be today. That focus means we we more likely translate current market needs into solutions that will pay off today but we may not be as likely to go for the long shot ventures.

• Women know relationships and know that the more open and transparent we are, the closer the relationships are that we can foster. This allows us to form really persistent relationships with employees, partners, and customers – and not through the use of money and rewards – which is more profitable and less vulnerable. See Diane Hessan’s excellent example of Return on Openness.

• Women know how valuable communication is – at all levels. That means a lot of us are chatty (it’s been proven) but it also means the people around us are never left in doubt of what is going on. That means there is less distrust and gives others the chance to bring up any issues they see.

• Women know how to navigate emotional conflict better and interestingly have an easier time discussing deep rooted differences of opinion between colleagues in a more collegial fashion. This allows for conflict resolution before things escalate into business problems.

• Women know how to identify subtle social queues and can identify whether or not someone is being open with us – whether we choose to acknowledge that or not. This allows women to more accurately assess relationships with customers and others.

• Women know that telling people what to do is not the most effective way to lead. Showing by example and using Socratic methods of mentoring often facilitates the response we desire without the negative side affects of the other party feeling controlled.

• Women know complexity. We can never focus on just work, or just money, or just family. It is always about the best decision for everyone rather than the best decision for any one constituent. This gives us a balanced perspective of a business and keeps us from maximizing revenue in the short term if it damages relationships in the long term – thus preserving sustainability and long term profits.

This is not to say that women are better and that this is true for all women (or that men don’t have these qualities) but bringing women into leadership positions will bring a diversity of approach, a different perspective, and some much needed skills to the board room. In a business environment where transparency and relationships are becoming core principals of business how can you afford not to bring more of those skills into your business?

From a personal perspective *not* having more of those qualities in companies is what has driven me to start my own. I don’t want to work in an environment that doesn’t understand balance, is driven to ‘win’ at all costs, and only values relationships while they result in revenue. It’s not what I am about and the more senior I get, the more aligning my values with the businesses I associate with matter to me. Is that a zero sum rule? Of course not – women don’t tend to view things that way and I certainly don’t.

What do you think? Is this too generalized? Do you think this is a sexist perspective? Does it reflect the women leaders that you know?

Don’t know the woman in the picture? That’s Indra Nooyi wife of a former boss of mine (who was quite a smart cookie himself) and CEO of Pepsi – great to see!