Kara Swisher

Recent Posts by Kara Swisher

The Men and No Women of Web 2.0 Boards (BoomTown's Talking to You: Twitter, Facebook, Zynga, Groupon and Foursquare)

In one memorable episode of the famous old short films “The Little Rascals,” after not getting invited to a party, the Our Gang little dudes decided to form their own group, comically called “The He-Man Woman-Haters Club.”

In other words: No girls allowed!

While it was wink-wink cute when Spanky, Alfalfa and Buckwheat huffed and puffed about keeping out Darla–which they never ever could do–back in the last century, it’s not quite as adorkable when it comes to the boards of all the major Web 2.0 hotshots these days.

That would be Twitter, Facebook, Zynga, Groupon and Foursquare, none of which have any women as directors.

As in zero.

What’s most remarkable is that most of these start-ups are run by what I consider enlightened and open-minded entrepreneurs, mostly young enough to be part of a generation more inclined to value equality and diversity in the workplace.

In addition, each of these companies has a massive base of women consumers, in some cases well over 50 percent of its audience.

Thus, it would seem logical that in casting about for those to help guide these companies, one or two women leaders might slip in.

To be fair, it’s not for lack of trying, but of completion, as was the case with Twitter’s recent addition of three new board members.

They were longtime Silicon Valley exec Peter Currie, Flipboard CEO and co-founder Mike McCue and former DoubleClick leader David Rosenblatt.

All are deeply qualified for the Twitter board, which is obviously prepping for its next stage of growth and maturity.

But in its search, the San Francisco microblogging site did not manage to cast the net quite wide enough.

While sources said at least one prominent online woman exec was considered, there were some legitimate issues with her appointment, and it was not completed.

Still, one might imagine Twitter could have tried harder to find other workable choices.

Currently, the Twitter board is made up of the new trio, as well as Benchmark Capital’s Peter Fenton, Union Square Ventures’ Fred Wilson, Bijan Sabet of Spark Capital, CEO Dick Costolo and co-founders Evan Williams and Jack Dorsey.

Things are not any better over at Facebook, which has several prominent women execs running the show, most especially its high-profile COO Sheryl Sandberg.

But, inexplicably, though she does attend board meetings, she is not yet a director of Facebook, nor is any other woman.

In fact, here is Sandberg on topic at a recent TED event for women, in an eloquent speech titled “Why We Have So Few Women Leaders”:

Instead, the Facebook board is all men, all the time, composed of CEO and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, prominent techie and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, investor Peter Thiel, Accel Partners’ Jim Breyer and Washington Post head Don Graham.

It is no better at three of the most prominent recent Web 2.0 start-ups, which one source attributes to the lack of woman VCs, who are often the first board members after major investment rounds.

At Zynga, the hot social gaming company in San Francisco, it continues, with an all-male board, despite a very heavily female audience for its casual social games.

That would be co-founder and CEO Mark Pincus, COO Owen Van Natta, investor Bing Gordon of Kleiner Perkins, investor Reid Hoffman and Brad Feld of the Foundry Group.

The same is true at woman-targeted–spas, spas and more spas–social buying site Groupon, which has an unusually large board for a start-up and made up of–as per usual–all men.

The list: Co-founder and CEO Andrew Mason, Accel Partners’ Kevin Efrusy, former AT&T President and COO John Walter, New Enterprise Associates’ Harry Weller and Peter Barris, former AOL exec Ted Leonsis, 37Signals co-founder Jason Fried and early investors Eric Lefkofsky and Brad Keywell.

And, much smaller, is Foursquare’s board, which is the trio of co-founder and CEO Dennis Crowley, co-founder Naveen Selvadurai and Union Square Ventures’ Albert Wenger.

New investors–Ben Horowitz of Andreessen Horowitz and O’Reilly AlphaTech Ventures’ Bryce Roberts–have observer status and both are, needless to say, dudes.

There is no question it is tough to make sure there is a good balance of qualified women leaders to men in tech–it is an issue we wrestle with every single year for the program of speakers at our own All Things Digital conference, although we are most excellent on this issue on our Web site and conference staff.

But it can be done, especially at public tech companies. Google has two women on its board of nine directors; Yahoo has three of 10; even Oracle has two of a dozen.

But a grand total of zero at the leading companies of Web 2.0 is not just a coincidence.

It’s a shame.

Tomorrow, BoomTown will post a list of great women who would be superb directors for any of these companies, but until then, let’s not follow in Spanky’s steps:


comments so far. Add yours.

  • http://www.whydoeseverythingsuck.com Hank Williams

    Your real complaint should be that there are almost no female VCs or founders. Random folks dont generally get board seats. That is left for founders/senior execs, and investor do. So if you dont have female investors you wont have female board members. End of story.

  • http://www.jasonnation.com jasoncalacanis

    Who are your top 10 suggestions?

  • http://twitter.com/nakisnakis nakisnakis

    Kara, Thanks for pointing out the #genderskewed nature of current Web 2.0 boards.

    I’m the Founder & CEO of Pipeline Fund, a social venture fund that invests in women-led for-profit social ventures and trains women to become angel investors through education, mentoring, and practice. The more women angel investors we add to the investor pool, the more candidates there will be for board seats.

    I look forward to collaborating with you to #changetheratio and add #morevoices to the table.

  • Anonymous

    this is a total non issue

  • http://twitter.com/KeithClark_ Keith Clark

    she has no response

  • Anonymous

    Who cares

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Daniel-James/706574918 Daniel James

    The question can be answered by the following statement – women never were (and never will be) interested in technology. Don’t give me this women have a disadvantage crap, they have the same education as men.

  • Anonymous

    I think this “issue” is silly. Maybe no women are on these boards because they did not find women with the right credentials. Companies shouldn’t be forced to have a woman on just to appear neutral. If women deserve the jobs, then they should get them. It’s about ability, not sexism. I mean, go to any Computer Science class or any engineering class in any universities, women are pretty sparse compared to men in this field. Maybe another question is, why aren’t women creating these innovations that have a huge female appeal?

  • http://twitter.com/richie_gunnz Steve Carlson

    Boo-f’ing-hoo.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Claudia-Scott/1417578032 Claudia Scott

    i suppose as a techie who happens to be female its normal
    i have ran with the boys for years girls were lusted after or feared but not anything of importance as with the web the superficial relationship with women just got embellished as the immaturity of successful men took common place….

  • http://twitter.com/tismoi kylie sachs

    People often say the lack of women is related to the assumption that fewer women are engineers. But has anyone analyzed VC portfolio company boards in general and tallied up how many of the men on these boards are actually computer science guys/engineers? The answer may be many; I am just curious if anyone has done the math. I was on a panel with VCs where we did this on the fly a it related to CEO/founders, and the VCs said that fewer women run their companies because they are not engineers by training, but when asked how many of the CEOs are actually engineers, the surprising answer was actually only about 25%.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Debby-Clark/100001252425010 Debby Clark

    it is an issue, because women bring a different point of view that is valuable, but men just don’t instinctively recognize it. By shining a light on the issue, it helps. I wonder if Apple has women on their board..? (even tho they’re not Web 2.0).

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MR7CP4NALPHHOID43UNVIGJI4U Linda Rizzuti

    this is very true …

  • http://twitter.com/nexcerpt Gary Stock

    This cause has long hampered itself with two conflicting assertions: 1) women differ from men, and 2) women are the same as men. Even this article implies muddies together these mutually exclusive claims.

    It would be helpful if we could hear the official party line: do women differ from men (thus offering something men don’t) or are women the same as men (thus deserving identical treatment)?

    If those choices are too stark, feel free to state HOW women differ — but be prepared to accept that “difference” doesn’t always equate with “value.” Until that premise is settled, it’s unfortunately easy to dismiss the claim as internally flawed.

  • Anonymous

    Never really thought about it like that before.

    http://www.anon-web.edu.tc

  • http://allthingsd.com/boomtown Kara Swisher

    Yes, one.

  • http://twitter.com/alexiskold Alex Iskold

    GetGlue: Woman director + woman VP of Engineering. Done!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Georgy-Thomas/1080873138 Georgy Thomas

    Kara,

    What’s preventing women from founding trendsetting and innovative companies like Twitter, Facebook, Zynga, Groupon, Foursquare, etc., and stuffing their entire boards with women directors?

  • Anonymous

    What rubbish is this article alluding too? So you’re saying that some arbitrary quota should now be the norm every-time some company gets afoot, a quota that must include “women” board members specifically?? Maybe “women” with the right credentials aren’t available or didn’t qualify for the positions or just didn’t make the cut. This is really silly.

  • http://twitter.com/nakisnakis nakisnakis

    Many times funding opportunities and networks. Pipeline Fund is responding to this market need by investing in women-led for-profit social ventures and training more women to become angel investors.

  • http://www.astramatch.com/blog pemo

    Hi Kara Thanks for writing this post, it’s shocking really. There are so many smart, wise & creative business women that it is a real pity that they are not represented in these top Web2.0 companies. I have been video interviewing venture capitalists and women founders on the shortfall of venture funding for women. Everyone has different perspectives & its great to get feedback from many who are not usually featured online. The current interview is with Eve Phillips @ Blumberg Capital A Woman’s View from Both Sides of the Table http://www.ezebis.com/venture/.....able-ptii/ Also really enjoyed when you hosted the Astia Awards a few weeks back, thanks so much for supporting women entrepreneurs. Would you be interested in giving me an video interview? Let me know pemo at ezebisdotcom Thanks

  • http://twitter.com/jdp23 Jon Pincus

    Well said — and great graphics!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_EEV2SAJLZKD4XFJGHYS4XK44CE Kevin

    While I could care less who is serving on a board, as long as they are doing a good job. I really miss this point. Why are women not starting companies like this? why are the women not just competing? Like I said I would not care if it was all women, as long as they are doing a good job.
    I work in the web industry and I just don’t see as many women wanting to join the ranks. I would care less if they did. Wouldn’t you gain more respect if you were to start your own company, or create an idea, rather than saying “hey no fair, I had nothing to do with this but I should get in because I am a xxx”. I would think so. Of course the female perspective is important, especially if they are your consumers. I would point out that a man created what the women are using so……..Again I don’t care what sex, orientation, or color you are, but to get respect you are doing a disservice by complaining and not doing.

  • http://www.exponentialedge.com Adrian Ott

    Kara, Thank you for highlighting an important issue. Although the argument is made that the boards are made up of investors (primarily VCs) who are men, women are key investors in public pensions, such as CalPers that fund the livelihood of VCs.

    Perhaps public pension funds should require more female representation on the boards and more access to funding for women entrepreneurs before they invest public funds with VCs. According to The Guardian Life Small Business Research Institute future job growth will be created primarily by women-owned small businesses. Shouldn’t women entrepreneurs have equal access to these public pension funds?

  • http://thinkexperience.com/ Kelley Boyd @msksboyd

    I really think that there is a relationship between where we are in the curve of Title IX adoption. Women graduating from college now are the first to have gone all the way through school with the knowledge that they would get a fair shot if they distinguished themselves in one way or another. It is no secret that the women who have made it in the past have been loathe to help other women. It is not hard to understand why, if there is only one seat and you give another woman a hand up, well, she might push you out. That is not smart.

    Further there is stigma (ageism/elitism) that are also at play…and that doesn’t have anything to do with gender….so, all we can really do is what you have done, continue to shine a spotlight on how to improve our industry by having more voices at the table, continuing (or in some cases) start to support organizations that offer more to impact the problem than a “canned food drive or happy hour”.

    It takes focused, concentrated effort…and that is hard work. I am working with Women 2.0 (launching in the spring in NYC) to deliver a manner of “professional development” for entrepreneurs and to rally the voices who have been heard in the blogosphere to become #championsofchange. To work together, with us, to use their collective force to bring about change. We hope to work with Webgrrls, Pipeline Fund, Change the Ratio and Iridescent Learning (and others too long to list here) to find the right balance for empowering the those who are marginalized and to bring about balance in leadership positions.

    I am SO impressed with the leadership of these organizations and we are all motivated by the same goal, though our touch points are different. Which is awesome! And needed. And, I think, we are at exactly the right time to make meaningful progress.

    I mean, if the Saints can win a Superbowl, anything can happen! Welcome the Decade of the Woman Entrepreneur!

  • http://dwschulze.pip.verisignlabs.com/ Dean

    What a bunch of PC whining.

    If the “different view” that women brought to boards were actually valuable, especially with all of their female customers, there would be more women on the boards.

    What exactly is the value of the “different view” that women bring? Is it anything real or just made up nonsense?

  • Anonymous

    Although the argument is made that the boards are made up of investors (primarily VCs) who are men, women are key investors in public pensions, such as CalPers that fund the VCs. (Yes Virginia, VCs use “other people’s money”)

    Perhaps public pension funds should require more female representation on the boards and more access to funding for women entrepreneurs before they invest public funds with VCs. According to The Guardian Life Small Business Research Institute, future job growth will be created primarily by women-owned small businesses. Shouldn’t women entrepreneurs have equal access to these public pension funds?

  • Anonymous

    I’m interested in what the racial/ethnic breakdown of these boards is. Do you know?

  • http://allthingsd.com/boomtown Kara Swisher

    There are plenty of women with credentials. And having more than NONE is not arbitrary.

  • http://allthingsd.com/boomtown Kara Swisher

    Working on that one too. But these boards are largely white guys.

  • Anonymous

    Let’s see, Twitter’s board is made up of its venture capitalists (who have that right thanks to their investments), it’s founders, and it’s CEO, plus three new comers. What it sounds like to me is that if there are going to be more women on the boards of Web 2.0 companies, then more women need to found them or fund them instead of waiting for someone to come asking.

  • Anonymous

    That’s not YOUR call to make. Afterall you’re not in the decision making process.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=637245459 Anonymous

    Well done, Kara. Well done.

  • http://twitter.com/SavvyMike Michael Shumake

    This article is lame. I’m sure these companies would have women as members of the board if there were more women interested in this industry. So far it’s been all boys because the women just aren’t there. I’ve worked in tech my entire adult life and have always ended up having to hire men after specifically trying to hire women, there just isn’t that many women with the interest and passion for these kinds of jobs, or if the passion is there the skills are not. I truly wish there were more women in this industry, but they are few and far between. Not because they don’t get hired, but because they don’t exist.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=522664027 Nabil Martin Elbehri

    This is not sexism, please stop creating issues that aren’t there. Women are not found in the computer arena therefore they probably won’t be on the Boards of Facebook, Zynga etc..

    If you want women on the boards of these companies teach your daughters how to make websites and write code.

  • amykmaestas

    that is almost correct. Meg Whitman, while not the original founder of Ebay, was the CEO from 98 to 08. Look it up to see how much impact she had on this company as a CEO, it is quite amazing.

  • amykmaestas

    so the ‘right credentials’ means what? good marketing sense, business sense or do you have to be a developer? your logic is flawed. and sorry it is not a silly issue as you state. the point of the article is, if half of the population using these sites are women, then it would make sense to find women to sit on these boards. you do not have to be a troll sitting in a cave 20 hours a day to qualify.

  • amykmaestas

    so you can relate to women then?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=422553 Anonymous

    I’d like to respond respectfully, but your post is idiotic. There is a difference between “few and far between” (which while very overstated might be true about women in tech) and “they don’t exist.” I would say they might not exist to you, but we are here. And Kara wasn’t asking for a quota, like some of the other dumb posts here. Just for “more than none.”

  • http://www.zivity.com/models/cyan cyantist

    YES!

  • http://www.zivity.com/models/cyan cyantist

    Kara – what does “white guys” mean?

  • http://www.zivity.com/models/cyan cyantist

    I agree with the first comment. If you want women on boards, then:

    1) If our daughters are interested, teach them business & programming skills.
    2) Encourage and mentor women who want to start businesses. If they start interesting businesses, invest in them.
    3) Encourage women who leave Facebook, Zynga, Google etc. to invest what they made into companies and provide value. Key word being value. Founders/CEOs will notice that value.

    You don’t get put on a board just because you are woman. Board composition is incredibly strategic (or should be) and the seats are taken by founders (time + money) & vcs/lead angels (money).

    As an investor who happens to be female, I don’t see a lot of other women out here. I see a lot of my female friends buying houses instead of investing in high risk startups.

    I sit on four boards and even though they are not Zynga sized, many have substantial revenues. I’m sure my being female helps with three out of the four, as a female perspective can be useful when you are selling products that are about women or to women, but that’s not the sole reason I was added.

    I’m good at what I do.

  • http://www.alifeofthemind.com/ Walenty Lisek

    Men and women are not equals, it’s time you grew up and accepted it. The reality is that human biological diversity is real because evolution is real. Which means that Larry Summers was right about women not achieving as highly as men.

    1.) Women’s biology drives them towards different goals than men, and

    2.) Far more men are represented at the high end of the IQ spectrum than women.

    You cannot expect equal outcomes from unequal groups. The last 30 years of feminism and living in a Western world where women have been allowed to do whatever insane things they’ve wanted to do should be evidence enough for any sane person to realize that women aren’t failing because they are being oppressed but rather because they don’t have the biology to succeed. If women were as enlightened as they thought they were then Western birthrates wouldn’t be a suicidally low levels.

    The problem isn’t discrimination, the problem is too many women suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect and don’t know their own limits.

  • http://dwschulze.pip.verisignlabs.com/ Dean

    Good substantive comments. Your comments are strikingly different from the political posturing in the original article.

  • Anonymous

    the “right credentials” means whatever the people who choose the boards want it to mean. In all of the jobs that I’ve applied to, “right credentials” are generally set by the people who are hiring. The people applying for jobs don’t get to tell them what they’re looking for. I’m sorry, but being forced to pick a woman simply for the fact that women like your product is more sexist than picking people by comparing abilities. For example, just because Chanel is mostly used by women, doesn’t mean the owners of Chanel must be women.

  • http://twitter.com/spongefile Tina Aspiala

    Women know what it’s like to be treated by society as a woman. For instance, women tend to be stalked more than men. It might be helpful for a social media company to have a woman on the board that could bring up the user perspectives that an all-male board might not realize. For example, men are probably more comfortable broadcasting their precise GPS coordinates to the world than women are. At least their risks are different. Otherwise, I personally don’t think there’s much of an inherent difference. Men can be overemotional nutcases, and women can be over-rational and cold. But as long as it’s vitally important to know whether a newborn is a boy or a girl so you’ll know whether to buy the kid a doll or a truck, there’s going to be a different life experience.

  • http://www.jasonnation.com jasoncalacanis

    I would have to agree with Cyan.

    Board seats are primarily chosen to represent classes of stock, which come in to flavors: common for founder and preferred for investors.

    In most small boards four of five seats are selected based on representing stock: two for founders and two for investors, with one being an independent.

    An independent seat is selected based on need, knowledge and previous experience. Typically the best thing for a founder to do is find someone who was the CEO of a bigger company and put them in that position.

    Now you can see why we have a problem:

    1. There are not many women founders, so 40% of the seats are now male.

    2. There are very few investors who are female (angel or VC), and there are plenty of women with a ton of money they could invest. I’m not sure why this is, but the end result is that women are not investing so they don’t get the investors seats. Now 80% of the seats are spoken for.

    3. Finally, you have the indie seats left and they are going to go to former CEOs who, you guessed it, are primarly male.

    As Kara knows from running events, and as all event hosts know, getting females on the program is very,very hard. There are a small number of females in the CEO/founder slots, and they get asked to speak at EVERY conference. The result is they can’t say yes to everyone.

    I suspect the same thing is happening here: everyone is hitting up the same small pool of qualified female candidates and there aren’t enough to go around.

    What we really need to do is focus on the funnel that fills board: founders, CEOs and angel investors.

    Better than getting women on these boards would be creating a female ycombinator! In fact, that gives me an idea… when my daughter is old enough maybe I will come out of retirement and start one with her. :-)

    Now I’m off to call Martha and try to get her on the board of Mahalo.com! :-)

  • http://twitter.com/mp3michael mp3michael

    Boards have very little practical direction for a company. They are part time employees who meet once a month or two or three. They are usually ceremonial heads with modest compensation which means it would be unwise for them to invest massive time because the upside is just not there.

    One can simply look at the many net success stories and ascertain that the companies success is linked to the CEO and their management team not the board.

    Secondly, there’s no data to suggest having a board with a black, asian, woman, eskimo, homosexual, etc is superior to a homogenous one. To restate this – there’s no data to suggest diversity is a business benefit. I understand it’s a popular myth but it’s not based in fact.

    – MR

    Michael Robertson
    http://www.michaelrobertson.com
    http://twitter.com/mp3michael

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Bishop/100001558753073 Eric Bishop

    …crickets. This is the classic playing of the race/gender/ethnic card. The article doesn’t suggest any nobrainer candidates, just inserts specious innuendo. Also, most of these board members are there because they or their company (VC, Angel investor, other equity partner, etc.) put LARGE amounts of capital up to help XYZ company and demanded a board position in return. NOTHING is stopping women from starting companies like facebook, which got to 500,000 member on less than $100K (my dead grandmother could get ahold of $100K), or starting an investment vehicle that ultimately makes investments in these types of companies. Cry me a river, the candidates simply aren’t out there.

  • http://www.facebook.com/marc.giannoni Marc Giannoni

    Beware!

    Don’t admire these “Guys”. As a technologist I understand their ‘inventions’, and my opinion is NOT that great because they’re exploiting a technological imbalance that is surprisingly mirrored in this same gender imbalance. Web-2.0 is totally “Top-Down”, meaning that big central providers rule, and rule by absolute authority. Very Mars, very Masculine.

    Facebook, Google-Cloud, Twitter, all of the gee-whiz inventions are merely TCP/IP applications which have the veneer of empowerment, the immediate effect of individual empowerment. But these services at the core are centrally controlled, centrally implemented, and centrally governed where the users are less than chattel – a new form of commodity.

    Let me enumerate some the disadvantages to the users: personal information mined and distributed to targeted advertisers, page-view advertising encroaching on personal messaging channels, web crawlers screen-scraping for surveillance data-mining ready to capitulate with any zealous law enforcement action.

    Trust me when I tell you that your family photos, your personal life history, your physical location and activity does NOT belong on a behemoth 2000 Terrabyte data-farm with multiple redundant 90-Gbps data-pipes that peer with more than one world-class transit provider. Yea! These are the guys with multiple fiber-optic cables going underneath all of the world’s oceans!

    Do you REALLY want your personal life uploaded to a system like this? Myself, I’m contemplating completely removing my Facebook datastore.

Latest Video

View all videos »

Search »

Arguing online is like wearing a sharkskin vest. You look like a jerk.

— Anil Dash, in Businessweek’s How To issue