Champion Boards

Asking the Tough Questions

2012-02-18T11:03:00.001-08:00

Perhaps it is time for women to begin asking the tough questions of themselves, rather than simply waiting for that last Prince Charming, the corporate CEO, to bring them their fairy tale world of perfect diversity.

1. If women are now 60% of the educated candidate pool, and significant percentages of law school graduates, medical school and business school graduates, are women crafting the next generation of entities required to retool our American economic system? Or are they just sitting back on their stilettos waiting to be handed the perfect job?

2. Are women obsessed with forming nonprofits that avoid the real economics of the marketplace? Are women only capable of giving away, volunteering their hard-earned knowledge and skills? Are women so dependent on public sector coffers that they cannot imagine a revenue-generating business model that would sustain their creative enterprise over the long term?

3. Aren't women just as capable as men, today, to fabricate law firms with the diversity traits they consider appropriate? Can't women today build medical practices that are both creative and diverse in their delivery of services to clients as well as their ownership and operation as an organization? Can't women also build the profitable and diverse businesses to address real world problems, economically, as they seem to expect all men to do for them?

4. If more women in leadership were that alleged perfect predictor of greater returns, why don't women themselves build businesses WITH greater returns, WITH more employees, and then re-invest profits in OTHER viable, profitable, revenue-generating women-owned enterprises that solve the substantive problems that confront families, women, and yes even men?

5. Are women persisting in the age-old practice of building only businesses that pander to their shoe-shopping fantasies, their fascination with excessive fashion consumption, personal beauty products, and other behaviors of mate-searching and -attracting rather than substantive problem-solving for the benefit of 100% of society's members?

Whenever you read the next article from a "woman's advocacy network or organization" ask yourself, Is she describing how she is an active participant in making change happen among today's woman in leadership or is she simply expecting others to do all the heavy lifting for her? Is she hoping that more rules and regulations will "make others" change, rather than being the agent of change, herself, for herself?

Based on my research and interviews, I have no doubt that there are many, and a growing number of, women who no longer accept the Daddy Warbucks or the Stepford Wife models of behavior. There are many such accomplished women making change happen, one day at a time, one business at a time, one decision at a time in just about every sector of our economy. If you haven't seen them or heard about them, perhaps you aren't demanding enough, expecting enough. Perhaps you too have settled for less than the best of the best. Perhaps we all need to ask ourselves some of these tougher questions.

Fifteen Seconds of Fame!

2012-01-25T11:16:00.000-08:00

Women Leaders at Work: Untold Tales of Women Achieving their Ambitions (Apress: December 2011), written by Elizabeth Ghaffari, broke through the 100 mark of Amazon.com’s top listed books in print in the category Women & Business. This category is a subset of Business & Investment which contains almost 1.6 million titles, but the Women & Business subcategory contains “only” 1,638 books in print. So, clearly, we are very proud of this breakthrough.

Even more interesting is that the Kindle version of Women Leaders at Work hit #50 this week among Amazon.com’s top listed digital books in the category Management Science. The Kindle Store on Amazon.com offers 1.2 million titles, Nonfiction offers about 800,000 titles, the Business & Investing subcategory has about 67,000 titles, Management & Leadership has about 15,000 titles, and Management Science has 880 titles including a couple of books from Peter Drucker.

So, to summarize, Women Leaders at Work celebrated 15 seconds of fame the week beginning January 22, 2012 when it ranked in the top 100 out of 1.6 million Business & Investment titles and in the top 50 out of 800,00 Kindle nonfiction digital books.

We thank you for your support!

Ms. Magazine at 40

2012-01-18T17:28:00.000-08:00

On Janaury 26, 2012, Ms. Magazine will celebrate its 40^th anniversary of publishing a woman’s perspective in a luncheon in New York City. See: http://www.msmagazine.com/

From the HerStory link on the Ms. Magazine website: “When Ms. was launched as a ‘one-shot’ sample insert in New York Magazine in December 1971, few realized it would become the landmark institution in both women's rights and American journalism that it is today.”

On Dec. 31, 2001, Eleanor Smeal’s Feminist Majority Foundation assumed ownership of Ms. Magazine through Liberty Media for Women, LLC. A consortium of feminists have been publishing the magazine since 1998. (Smeal was president of the National Organization for Women from 1977 to 1982 and from 1985 to 1987.)

I think it is ironic that just one little town in France this year (2012) finally decided to give up the distinction between Madam and Mademoiselle, trashing the latter in favor of the former. Cesson-Sevigne, France bid “adieu” to the word “mademoiselle” in the town’s official documentation in an effort to improve gender equality. This was in response to a campaign by two women’s organizations’, Osez le Féminisme (Dare Feminism) and Les Chiennes de Garde (Guard Bitches), to eliminate sexism, arguing that men make no such distinction between married vs. unmarried men. (Interesting that they have no problem using the term “bitches.”)

So, when I hear women tell me that we should be following the lead of the French in establishing gender quotas for boards of directors, you’ll excuse my lack of enthusiasm for a nation that is struggling with a forty-year old definition of diversity. I think American women HAVE come a long way and a lot farther than that.

When Political Winds Turn

2012-01-11T12:19:00.000-08:00

One reason for not supporting legislated quotas for women on corporate boards of directors in the US is the lesson learned from watching other legislated mandates (for equally worthy purposes) die when the popular political winds turned.

Support for public radio/television programming and planned parenthood are two examples. More recently, we’ve seen the demise, in California, of the loan guarantees supporting small business entrepreneurs -- a highly successful program by all measures (and “guarantees” only -- not even direct funding of new business growth).

Now, at the federal and state levels, we see the slow erosion of Head Start early childhood education (ECE) support. The way it usually happens is that DC administrators change the rules (“tightening performance criteria” -- as if government agencies know what that means). That produces greater investment in the federal overhead required to administer (police) the state and local agencies, usually resulting in increased staffing, compensation, and associated benefit packages for the federal regulators, but sizable shaving back of operations and funding for the point of service delivery to the customer.

In the case of Head Start, we have the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Head Start, the California Department of Education’s California Head Start State Collaboration Office, and the Los Angeles County Office of Education’s Office of Head Start, plus the California Head Start Association (the nonprofit advocacy entity).

Head Start is a 50 year old program from the Lyndon Johnson “war on poverty,” providing preschool care for low income families (now redefined as 130 percent of the poverty level of $28,600 income for a family of four). Another 10% of headcount can include children from higher income families. Head Start nationally serves about a million infants, toddlers and preschoolers. Recent studies by the General Accountability Office (GAO) have questioned the performance of Head Start programs including that of the LA County Office of Education (LACOE, which is ranked #2 in the nation). LA was one of 130 agencies that did not meet enhanced federal performance standards. LA County’s share of the Head Start marketplace is about 23,000 children served by 25 contract providers.

Nationally, there are 550 Head Start programs with 506 (92%) having waiting lists for children to be served. A total of 1,600 nonprofits receive Head Start money estimated at $9 billion a year, although there is no specific estimate of the amounts that go directly to program support vs. amounts required to administer and oversee the programs at federal, state or local departments.

LA County total population is 10 million with 646,000 children under the age of 5 years and in need of some form of pre-school and other early childhood education (ECE) services. Thus, Head Start serves 3.6% of the total possible need in LA County alone.

According to Kidsdata.org, the supply vs. demand for child care/family care services is 25% overall, statewide. That means just one if four kid is getting the ECE she/he needs. Riverside (the tightest market) supplies only 16% of the “slots” ECE demanded by area family while San Diego (the best served market) provides 34% of the “slots” demanded.

According to population research conducted by the University of Southern California, the state lost 8.1% (220,041) of the children in the 5 to 9 age range over the past decade because of poor economy produced inadequate incomes to support families through job-creation. LA County lost a whopping 21% of children in the 5 to 9 age range over the same period.

Early childhood education is too important today to be entrusted to the political whims of government regulators. Like the Internet in DARPA, it might have been appropriate, in the early years, to kick-start and prove the viability of the concept. A fifty year gestation period is long enough. In five decades there could have been significantly more innovation in the ECE field in tandem with the growing shares of women in the workforce.

Today, there is an emerging capacity to deliver such educational services through private enterprise and potentially develop innovative solutions to better prepare more youngsters for higher (elementary) education.

The private sector delivers a significant quantity of early childhood education services. The top fifty entities nationwide in 2010 reported over 5,000 centers providing ECE services to more than 710,000 infants, toddlers, and pre-schoolers (or an average of 142 students per center). Ownership of private entities was equally divided between men and women (and many were jointly men/women owned). Today, there are many case examples demonstrating a viable array of women-owned, co-owned, co-founded and co-managed service providers in the ECE field.

Only 8 of the top fifty companies offerred 100 or more centers. The three largest by far were:

Knowledge Universe - 1,699 centers serving 226,500 children
Learning Care Group - 1,053 centers serving 157,000 children
Bright Horizons Family Solutions - 700 centers serving 77,000 children

These companies provide a full array of standalone centers, franchise facilities, and in-company (hospitals, universities, and corporate) facilities both here and abroad.

Mothers in the workforce, today, continually complain of the inadequacy of supply and quality of ECEs -- a problem that will not be overcome by throwing more government resources or regulations after bad.

An examination of the private sector offerings reveals that this area is ripe for investment and growth. It is incredible to think that the US can devise eating-out or coffee establishments that successfully blanket the country -- profitably -- yet we cannot build a viable ECE delivery network supported by our escalating consumer demand profile. For those who rear up in indignation that ECE could possibly be considered “a business,” let us suggest that this is a business that ought to be uniquely and appropriately well-suited to women entrepreneurship. There exist a number of quality educational programs to train women in the creation and proper management of ECEs. UCLA’s Anderson School of Management, in conjunction with Johnson & Johnson, has developed one of the nation’s top programs in this field. Education of this caliber should increase not only the performance of ECE program managers, but more than justify their increased earnings potential.

Private investors have stepped up to the plate to seed top ECE-providing companies. The Milken brothers have played an important role as investors in Knowledge Universe, Morgan Stanley Private Wealth played a key role in the early days of Learning Care Group’s evolution, including the consolidation of five ECE providers.

A key problem is that private sector providers must compete with the previously-subsidized government-supported sector which distorts the marketplace (and occasionally invites fraud). The government's more appropriate role is to ensure an even playing field free from abusive or fraudulent practices. Then, get out of the way of innovators capable of quality expansion of the supply and efficient delivery of ECE programs nationwide.

If America can deliver computers, hamburgers, gas, coffee and a whole host of other human essentials to a significant share of the marketplace, why cannot we deliver family support/ECE services effectively to more than just a million kids? When the ill winds of budget cuts begin to turn against public subsidy of this valued service, not even these kids will be able to get the early childhood education “head start” they need -- not at any price, not at any location.

Give Me a Few Minutes

2012-01-07T10:50:00.001-08:00

You’ll have to give me a few minutes to recover. I just spent an hour watching UCTV (University of California TV) broadcasting a panel of three women and one man discussing the topic of “Empowering Women to Take a Seat at the Table” (women getting on corporate boards). The panel was held December 7, 2010 at University of California Davis, led by moderator Professor Kimberly Elsbach.

This panel did NOT “empower” women at all. It was one of the most depressing collections of academic research since the early 1970s. One woman was an “expert” on institutional barriers to women’s progress, another was an expert on the sociological impediments, while HE was the expert on the pervasiveness of gender stereotypes. Professor Kimberly Elsbach, of the Graduate School of Management, focuses her research on the acquisition and maintenance of organizational images, identities and reputations.

Collectively, their message was that all the above negative factors were so ingrained, pervasive, and enduring in corporations that that “explained why” women can’t, don’t, won’t, and haven’t. Corporations and government alike all were to blame for the impoverished, excluded, and isolated state of women today.

Even though more women than ever before are being educated, constituting a majoring in some professional fields, still women were failing by all their measures and in all their research. And men weren’t doing anything to make things better for women, either.

So THERE! Consider yourselves “empowered,” women!

I disagree. But, as one woman who has written two books on the subject of women in leadership and how they tell us they achieved these goals and ambitions, I left this session downright depressed.

I wished the panel had had just one person -- just one voice of diversity -- who might have challenged their gross generalizations and groupthink. Their abject over-simplifications were apparent from every statement that began with “All women….” -- as if they could tamp the wide variety of backgrounds and educations, professions, and experiences that women possess, today, into one stereotype for ease of analysis. I wish someone could have said that their mentality was exactly the negativity that will keep women “in their place” of low-self esteem and lack of expectations of achievement. I wish just one of them could have exercised just a little “policy of intervention” to suggest that maybe the leadership of several top tier corporations by women today is having a positive, affirmative effect.

But, no. UC Davis panelists were having too good a time hyperventilating about how miserable women are and how it’s everyone else who is foisting all this alleged failure on women. That is the lesson UC Davis Graduate School of Management is teaching the next generation of women. And that’s why it’s going to take me a few minutes to come out of my funk.

Oh, Woe!

2012-01-07T10:02:00.000-08:00

If you Google Meg Whitman and “flatline” to retrieve her late December comment, you’ll see over 6,700 reports echoing her statement of misery, which goes something like this:

Quote:

Meg Whitman, chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, the world's largest technology company by revenue, said that while women have made advances in areas such as academia and medicine, the scarcity of women in the boardrooms of top businesses shows that their progress in the corporate world had "flatlined".

"Women made tremendous gains in the 70s, 80s and 90s," said Ms Whitman. "But the last decade has not been great. We are now almost at critical mass at the business schools and law schools. So what is driving this flatline?"

Unquote.

This quote comes from the leader of the company that had three women directors; the first woman CFO take over as CEO; two women CEOs in its past, and one of the top women in charge of all electronic business -- a woman who recently was added to the corporate board.

“Flatline?” Are you kidding me, Ms. Whitman?

Meg Whitman is part of the problem as are all other women who “bemoan” the tragedy of so few women, thereby inspiring zero women to follow their footsteps into leadership. Whenever an aspiring woman hears this negative tripe, she must say to herself, “Why should I bother to even try if Meg Whitman can’t find any hope in the data?”

For shame, Ms. Whitman!

As shown in my year-end wrap-analysis of press releases announcing women added to corporate boards, (see: www.championboards.com/newsonwomen_2011.htm), the number of women named to boards reached a new high of over 300 announcements in 2011, a 35.3% increase over the same data in 2010. Part of the reason “some women” can’t see the progress is that they focus on too small a sample: “only” the Fortune 500 firms or the Large Cap 250 firms, which could be described as dying dinosaurs compared to the growing number of emerging technology firms across the country and ESPECIALLY in California.

Women director appointments to boards among the handful of F500 companies represents but a fifth of all of the new appointments of women to all boards, including smaller, emerging companies. So, for every single major announcement in the traditional press there are four other top tier, talented women appointed to some company board.

California consistently leads in the number of women appointed to boards both because it is an engine of new entrepreneurial growth, but also because California is America’s technology hub. As my first book documented (Outstanding in their Field: How Women Corporate Directors Succeed, Praeger: 2009), technology provided the greatest opportunity area for women to acquire new skills and competencies over the past two decades. The technology path dominated every other path into the boardroom for women.

I seriously question how Ms. Whitman could possibly believe that progress has not been made since the 1970s when there was just one woman corporate director -- Patricia Roberts Harris -- named to a corporate board (1971 - IBM, a technology company). Ms. Whitman has ignored the 1,672 women directors whose board nominations have been acknowledged since July 2005 by the webblog, NewsOnWomen.com.

Ms. Whitman could read my latest book, Women Leaders at Work: Untold Tales of Women Achieving their Ambitions (Apress: 2011), where she will find women in leadership and directorship in business, politics, science, engineering, mathematics, law, medicine, academia, and nonprofits. Women are leading and collaborating effectively in every sector of our economy, today.

Enough, Ms. Whitman and all of the other woe-begoners! It is time for women in leadership to acknowledge and to foster the continued progress that women of achievement are making. Stop with the negative, unsubstantiated misery-loves-company kvetching! If women like Ms. Whitman are not part of the solution, at least they can stop being part of the problem.

Lessons from the 2011 NACD Public Company Governance Survey

2012-01-05T21:31:00.001-08:00

The Governance Survey is the 13^th such survey conducted in the past 20 years and is available to all NACD members. It covered 1,281 NACD public companies plus 2,400 ISS public companies that held their annual meetings during the first half of 2011.

At a recent governance conference, I said that many such director training sessions sometimes strike me as “shuffling the chairs on the deck of the Titanic” because they focus inordinately on detailed, small check-the-box issues of corporate regulatory compliance rather than concentrating on long-term strategic performance of the corporation and ensuring the best possible returns for shareholders.

So, I was pleased to read the NACD’s survey report echo my concerns, finding that 72% of public company directors surveyed felt that “strategic planning and oversight” was Priority #1 for their boards in 2011. Priority #2 (41%) was “corporate performance and valuation.” Following these, were “risk and crisis oversight” (27%) -- which should not be as high as it its if other prioritized corporate oversight was performed as effectively as possible.

Two other priorities were the “management of executive talent” and the “development of corporate leadership” (26%), followed by “CEO succession.” While “diversity” of boards or C-suite staff was not explicitly mentioned in the survey report, we might suspect that the talent pool at the very top is of serious concern because the ranks of talent at that level are thinning out faster than corporations would like.

For women seeking director roles at public companies, it is worth noting that directors average 227 hours on all board-related work in 2011, up from 204.5 hours in 2010, and that 90% of the directors make on-site visits (sometimes overseas) to gain a closer look at operations and corporate talent.

Average board size is steady for small firms at about 8 directors, 9 directors for medium size firms, and 11 to 12 directors for larger firms. Committee structure also is relatively constant with just above 3 members per Audit, Compensation, and Nominating/Governance Committees at the smaller firms and just above 4 members per committee for the larger firms.

Three fourths of all firms rely on “personal” networking or word of mouth” to find new director candidates. This year, “leadership experience” rose to the top (61.9%) as a priority attribute for new director qualifications, surpassing specific industry experience (54.2%), financial experience (46.6%), strategic development (28.8%) and global experience (17.9%)

Even though boards have put into place protections against ol’ boy entrenchment, still the average length of service increased to 7.5 years per director in 2011, up from 6.2 years last year. Over half (52.9%) of all boards surveyed require director resignations upon a change of their professional status (but they may vote not to accept). Almost half (48.4%) of boards surveyed have age limits (typically 72 years). Term limits typically are 2 terms of 3 years each. Only a third of boards limit the number of additional board service (typically 3 outside boards).

For women, the challenge is to get on the radar of boards searching for new director candidates. I disagree with those who would suggest that women should simply “network-network-network.” My research suggests that women who are named to boards perform as leaders in their firm, in their profession, and among all their peers. They become “known” as reliable performers. They stand out, speak up, and deliver performance results in their chosen field. That is how they build a network of associates (women and men) who advocate on their behalf when it is time to take the next step forward into a board role.

That is why “leadership experience” has risen to the top priority in director searches. These are the times that demand leadership from women as well as from men.

End of an Era (and Start of a New?)

2012-01-01T17:37:00.000-08:00

According to a recent email, Alice Krause reports that “NewsonWomen will be focusing less on the corporate world and more on the expanding opportunities for women in startup businesses.”

Alice Krause’s work on coporarte board membership reporting was significantly innovative, and she made a substantial difference in the field of monitoring women candidates for corporate governance. We expect that she will have a similar impact on news about entrepreneurial women and their new ventures. Here’s why:

First, and foremost, she took the lead in pointing out the who, what, where, when and why women were added to corporate boards -- what was the value in terms of the experience and education that women brought to the boardroom. Her consistency of reporting was and continues to be a cut above the mass media whine that dominates headlines. While everyone else focused on “the absence, the lack, the missing,” Alice Krause quietly documented the slow and pervasive rise in the headcount and the quality of women added to top NYSE, NASDAQ, OTC and substantive private corporate boards.

Second, Alice’s collaboration was outstanding. I was honored to work with her over the years and share the analytics and graphical portion of her reporting. I truly enjoyed the “giving and getting” that characterized my association with her. It was exciting, each month, to share the real progress women are making. Many other professionals who were working along the same pathway were highlighted by Alice in her NewsOnWomen.com blog daily. Not enough women’s organizations understand the value of such team-work, collaboration, and shared vision. And, most certainly, there are way too few women-based media outlets willing to report the facts, as opposed to the myths and the wishes. We expect NewsOnWomen will continue to raise expectations for the women’s venture/angel marketplace and the media that reports on their progress.

Finally, Alice’s reporting allowed us to examine more than the simplistic headcount as do most major media and nonprofit sources. The web sites that track women directors could take a lesson from the comprehensive coverage provided by NewsOnWomen.com. We would encourage these other sources to improve their reportage of women on board data

NACD (http://www.nacdonline.org/) reports on new director announcements (compiled by Spencer Stuart) in its daily newsletter, under Corporate Governance, Changes in the Boardroom. However, they provide only name and company. Directors & Boards magazine (http://www.directorsandboards.com/) has tracked quarterly new director announcements since 1994. Their print version has more complete biographies. More recently, Boardroom IQ (http://www.boardroomiq.com/) began reporting on new director announcements quarterly in 2010. The good part is that they provide more complete biographies for each director so now Nominating/Governance committees can’t say they don’t know any women directors. However, as the chart below indicates, even though director announcements tracked by Boardroom IQ shows a year to year doubling of the share of women as a percentage of all new directors from 2010 to 2011, they still miss out on a lot of directors that NewsOnWomen did capture during the same period. For the year 2010, BoardroomIQ reported only 11 women directors versus NewsOnWomen’s 224 new women director announcements. For the year 2011, BoardroomIQ currently reports 33 compared to NewsOnWomen’s 303 new women director announcements.

All of these sources miss a significant percent of all new women director announcements because they limit themselves to the top Fortune 500 firms, ignoring most if not all of the emerging firms that, today, tap women candidates in great numbers. They could easily track the same public press releases as did Alice Krause, but they prefer to rely upon only one or two major executive search firms to do their work for them. It is the smaller firms, today, that have a higher probability of bringing talented women on board, but a lower probability of using expensive board search firms.

Other potential sources include the hordes of women’s nonprofits that have emerged to advocate on behalf of women directors. Again, most of them also focus on Fortune 500 firms or limit their studies to their immediate geographic (usually metropolitan) area. Some of them do not even focus on the women who have achieved boards -- they concentrate on the companies that have failed to do so. Even worse are those nonprofits that recognize and award, not the women who have achieved leadership in governance, but the guys who lead those firms.

We also wonder about director organizations or nonprofits in other nations or on other continents. Why track only whether a country has a quota for women or diversity directors rather than the option of reporting on the names, the education, the experience, the expertise of individual women who are being appointed to boards in ever-increasing numbers?

We know that Alice Krause will continue to add great value to the media marketplace. We concur with you that the next great horizon is tracking the expected growth in net new business, job, employment (and boards of director) growth that will happen because women are taking on new ventures.

For the last Champion Boards report for 2011, see: www.championboards.com/newsonwomen_2011.htm

Happy New Year in 2012!

What Do These Firms Have in Common?

2011-12-28T09:18:00.000-08:00

What do the following entrepreneurial enterprises have in common? (Selections from NewsOnWomen.com -- Entrepreneurs, with additional information provided to help you understand the nature of each company.)

Catabasis Pharmaceuticals, (www.catabasispharma.com/) the Cambridge, MA firm, is a private, venture-backed biopharmaceutical company that leverages “the therapeutic potential of omega-3 fatty acids and other clinically validated compounds to create new medicines for the treatment of inflammatory and metabolic diseases.” Dr. Jill Milne, CEO, director and serial entrepreneur, co-founded the firm with Dr. Michael Jirousek and Dr. Steve Shoelson in June 2008. In December 2011, they raised an additional $8 Million in Series A financing bringing the total raised to $47.6 million.

ImmusanT (www.immusant.com/) is an early stage biotechnology company, now based in Cambridge, MA and focused on developing a treatment and a set of diagnostic and monitoring tools to manage patients with celiac disease. Leslie Williams is Founder, Director, CEO and President. In December 2011, the Company raised $20 million in Series A financing from Vatera Healthcare Partners.

Advanced ICU Care, (www.icumedicine.com) based in St. Louis, MO, is the nation's largest independent provider of tele-ICU programs. The firm was co-founded in 2004 by Dr. Mary Jo Gorman, M.D.; Dr. Isabelle Kopec, M.D.; and David Schopp. Dr. Gorman is the CEO of the Company which raised an undisclosed amount of new funding led by Trident Capital, Inc in November 2011.

WorkForce Software, (www.workforcesoftware.com) the Livonia, MI leading provider of workforce management solutions for organizations with complex labor policies and stringent compliance demands, was co-founded by Kathy Cannon with Kevin Choksi and Michael Knister. In November 2011, WorkForce raised a total of $17 M in Series A and mezzanine capital raise from investors K1 Capital.

Avaxia Biologics, Inc. (www.avaxiabiologics.com) based in Lexington, MA, is a privately-held biotech company developing oral antibody drugs that act locally within the gastrointestinal tract. The company was co-founded in 2005 by Dr, Barbara Fox, the firm’s current CEO, and the late Anne B. Baia, CPA, MST, MBA. The company began with a SBIR grant, and in November 2011 completed its first close of $2.2 million in Series A angel-led financing, led by Cherrystone Angels of Providence, Rhode Island.

Tangent Medical Technologies, Inc., (www.tangentmedical.com) is an Ann Arbor, MI development stage medical device company formed as a spinout from the University of Michigan’s Medical Innovation Center fellowship program. The firm was created to address health and safety shortcomings of problems with conventional peripheral intravenous (PIV) fluid/medication delivery systems. UM Medical Innovation Center fellows Adrienne Harris, Elyse Kemmerer, Merrell Sami and Steven White co-founded the company in 2009. In November, they completed a $4.5 million Series A equity financing co-led by Arboretum Ventures and Flagship Ventures.

Chromatin, Inc. (www.chromatininc.com) is a Chicago, IL-based company that has developed and marketed breakthrough gene-stacking technologies for improving any crop. The company’s patented mini-chromosome technologies enable the development of new seed products and the delivery of multiple genetic traits into any plant. Founded in 2000, the firm has office and laboratory facilities in Chicago and greenhouse operations in Champaign.

As a supplier of renewable biomass feedstocks for energy producers, Chromatin Inc. announced in October 2011 that it had completed a $10 million first closing of its Series D financing round that included two strategic investors – BP Ventures and Unilever Technology Ventures – as well as three investors who participated in earlier rounds of financing: Quantitative Investment Holdings, the Malaysian Life Sciences Capital Fund, and Illinois Ventures.

Chromatin Inc. was originally housed at the Chicago Technology Park on the Chicago Near West Side and is an example of how basic research moves out of the university lab and into the commercial mainstream. With technology licensed from the University of Chicago, Chromatin was founded in 2000 to design mini-chromosomes that could be implanted in plant cells to deliver specific, commercially desirable traits. The technology also could be used to make new pharmaceuticals and chemicals.

Daphne Preuss, a University of Chicago professor of molecular genetics and biology, founded the firm.

OvaScience (www.ovascience.com) is a Boston, MA-based innovative life science company dedicated to improving the treatment of infertility. The firm’s first product, AUGMENT, aims to increase the success of in vitro fertilization (IVF) by allowing a woman to use her own cellular energy to revitalize her egg. OvaScience's patented technology is exclusively licensed from Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital.

Privately-held, OvaScience was co-founded by Michelle Dipp, M.D., Ph.D. (now Chief Executive Officer), Rich Aldrich (now Chairman), Christoph Westphal, M.D., Ph.D. of Longwood Fund, and Professors Jonathan Tilly, Ph.D., Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, and David Sinclair, Ph.D., Harvard Medical School.

In October 2011, Ovascience obtained $6 million in venture capital Series A funding from Longwood and Bessemer Venture Partners.

Care.com Inc. (www.care.com) is a Waltham, MA-based company that offers a website to match care givers with clients who need care for children, adults and seniors, the elderly, pets and other purposes such as housekeeping and personal services. Again, the emphasis is on security checks and certified reviewers. Care.com offers limited access for a Basic (free) membership, with broader and safety-oriented access at Premium membership pricing.

The firm was founded by current CEO, Sheila Lirio Marcelo, in 2006 after she faced a difficult time finding care during a family issue. In October 2011, Care.com raised $25 million of venture capital funding from Texas-based financier and insurer USAA as corporate VC. According to USAA, “Earlier this year, USAA and Care.com announced a relationship to jointly develop integrated online solutions for managing unique military lifestyle changes, such as deployments or a military moves, with a focus on facilitating the management of care-related issues.”

This round was the fourth funding for the company, which also brought in $3.5 million in 2007 and $10 million in 2008.

HarQen, (www.harqen.com) is a Madison, WI-based business media company co-founded by CEO and serial entrepreneur, E. Kelly Fitzsimmons with Jeff Fitzsimmons. HarQen assembled a top tier team and launched Voice Advantage in March 2008 and the HarQen platform in 2009. HarQen's award winning Intelligent Voice Service lets business use the phone and a simple web-based dashboard to create and distribute custom, recorded phone interviews.

"[It] enables meetings, interviews and other business conversations to be captured, enriched, organized, navigated, shared and analyzed – improving collaboration and adding a new layer of business intelligence to existing data management systems". HarQuen secured over half of its targeted $4 million Series B funding in October 2011.

Take the Inteview (www.taketheinterview.com) is a Cambridge, MA-based video interviewing platform for employers and job candidates founded in early 2011 by company CEO Danielle Weinblatt, a former private equity associate and investment banking analyst (and current MBA student at Harvard Business School). In November 2011, Take the Interview raised $775,000 in new funding from angel investors.

Kenandy Inc.(www.kenandy.com) is the Redwood City, CA-based Manufacturing Management system built for cloud computing. Integrating Inventory Management, Engineering, Purchasing, Production, and Requirements Planning together with state-of-the-art supply chain collaboration. Kenandy is built on Force.com, the leading platform for cloud applications. Kenandy was funded by salesforce.com’s Marc Benioff , former Oracle exec Ray Lane via Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati. Sandra Kurtzig, Founder and CEO of Kenandy, Inc. (previously founder, CEO and chairman of the ASK Group) announced the closing of a $10.5 million Series A round of funding in August 2011.

Angie's List, (www.angieslist.com) is the online referral service created in Columbus, OH with 1,000 members in 1995 by Angie Hicks, now the company’s Chief Marketing Officer. Over a million members use Angie's List to find high quality service companies and health care professionals in over 550 categories. Before reviews are posted, they are checked in order to guard against providers and companies trying to report on themselves or their competitors -- a process that was reviewed and approved during a 2009 audit by BPA Worldwide. Angie’s List is a membership-based revenue model with multi-year discounts. In November, Angie's List, Inc. announced it was seeking $114 M in an initial public offering of 8,793,408 shares of common stock at the public price of $13.00 per share.

TaskRabbit, (www.taskrabbit.com) is the San Francisco, CA-based company that mediates outsourcing of errands founded by Leah Busque. Its CEO since October 2011 is Ed Grosse. TaskRabbit raised $17.8 million in Series B financing led by LightSpeed Venture Partners in December 2011. TaskRabbit entered the Los Angeles and Orange County marketplace in June 2011.

Getting Real

2011-12-24T11:57:00.000-08:00

Many investors, women as well as men, lost money which they genuinely believed could have produced a return based on the facts known about the business at the time they made their investment. Having lost money in the dot-com bubble, the financial melt-down, the Ponzi environment of the Madoff era, or the housing-flipper marketplace has made investors much more cautious about their choices. So, we should not be surprised if, today, venture or angel capital is in somewhat shorter supply.

Not only do memories of once-burnt-twice-shy circumstances weigh heavily on investors minds, but recent well-intended state and federal legislation significantly damper growth activities.

Yesterday’s cowboy entrepreneurs could play fast and loose with chimera stock options, promising exorbitant compensation for gullible high-tech employees. Today’s conscientious entrepreneur knows she faces tougher reporting requirements and must actually expense stock options rather than treat them like vaporware. The good ol’ boys in the good ol’ days could pretend contract workers were independent even though they were fully-utilized private employees. Today’s entrepreneur who mis-classifies independent contracts are subject to much tougher criteria and will face far more onerous consequences than his simple tap on the company wrist.

The bar is higher today for women entering entrepreneurship because we expect companies to perform like legal, civil, and responsible entities. Women entrepreneurs must step up to the plate in an era where performance expectations are higher than ever before.

In these tougher circumstances, women-owned or co-owned businesses cannot be in the same simple businesses our mothers crafted to occupy their time in those more plush periods. Today, we do find that many more interesting women ARE creating successful businesses that meet viable, substantive needs. A woman created Constant Contact, iRobot, and now a woman is CEO of Businesswire. Not bad!

If women-owned/co-owned businesses are “real,” they must meet seven essential criteria, to my mind. I would award seven stars to the best businesses, representing the following criteria:

1. The problem the business addresses is significant.

2. The proposed solution is valuable enough to sustain a revenue stream over time.

3. There are enough customers (men as well as women) to maintain the business’ long-term growth.

4. The business grows by reaching beyond its initial geographic market area.

5. The business is scalable -- capable of generating ever-higher revenues through the expanded application of resources.

6. The business has the potential for a value-realizing event.

7. The business can prevail beyond the passion and dedication of the initial leader and management team.

An example of a seven star enterprise is Leah Busque’s TaskRabbit (www.taskrabbit.com) -- the San Francisco-based company that mediates outsourcing of errands. Its CEO since October 2011 is Ed Grosse. TaskRabbit entered the LA & OC marketplace in June 2011. It is a viable micro-enterprise engine that offers entrepreneurs in multiple markets an opportunity to offer their services or to contract for services. TaskRabbit has a revenue model that grows with expansion. A must-read entry in their blog explains why TaskRabbit is a perfect example of the law of comparative advantage in action. Most importantly, the company has focused first and foremost on the security of TaskRabbit errand personnel -- an essential in today’s more anxious marketplace. TaskRabbit raised $17.8 million in Series B financing led by LightSpeed Venture Partners in December 2011. Earlier, TaskRabbit received received $1M in seed funding in August 2009 and $5M in Series A funding in May 2011.

All of which proves that seed, angel, and venture funds are available for the right women-owned businesses in today’s marketplace.

Managing the Nonprofit Organization

2011-12-23T21:50:00.000-08:00

Several years ago, I had the distinct honor and pleasure of listening to Peter Drucker speak for a series of about six evenings on the topic of his research, his insights, and his wisdom. I have never seen anyone speak for so long without referring to any notes. I remember his comments on how the nonprofit organization was going to be a more important part of our economy. Now that this has come to pass, it's important to understand what Peter Drucker expected from the nonprofit. His book, Managing the Nonprofit Organization, provides a very high level of performance -- a level that has been attained by very few. His book actually provides insight for leaders of traditional companies as well as nonprofits. Noteworthy to me, as an author, is the additional fact that his book includes inspirational and informative interviews with some of the best minds available.

Managing the Nonprofit Organization: Principles and Practices, by Peter Drucker

(Harper Paperbacks: May 9, 2006)

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

PART ONE: THE MISSION COMES FIRST: AND YOUR ROLE AS A LEADER.

1. The Commitment.

2. Leadership Is a Foul-Weather Job.

3. Setting New Goals - Interview with Frances Hesselbein.

4. What the Leader Owes - Inteview with Max De Pree.