The greatest social change of the 20th century was the change in the status of women.

We have not fully integrated or understood that change as individuals or as a culture. Thus the lack of diversity in SET and the problems with Recruitment and Retention in SET may be merely symptoms of deep cultural differences that clash and alter each other, as people and institutions try to adjust to the continuing changes of gender, economic and social shifts over the last century.  As former Secretary of Air Force, Dr. Sheila Widnauer, repeatedly reminded her colleagues and audiences "The sociology of science can not be ignored."

What is at issue here are in fact differing, deep, strong feelings and positions that in many ways affect the invisible social norms which shape opinion and behavior toward women.  Popular literature calls them "culture clashes".  But even at individual levels of the workplace, those differing attitudes and resultant behaviors can create climates and behavior that have consequences in Recruitment and Retention.  As Author Ruth Rosen notes in the Epilogue to The World Split Open, "Despite the difficulties women and men experienced as they tried to adjust to this newly configured life, its important to recognize that the women's movement did not invariably pit men against women.  This was not a battle between sexes; it was part of the highly gendered and radicalized cultural wars that polarized Americans in the wake of the 1960s.  Men and women fought together on both sides of the divide for this was a struggle between social and cultural ideas."  Those culture clashes continue today.  The role of women in the family, workplace and community are still a major part of both public and private debate.

When building a broad platform for understanding the recruitment and retention (RR) challenges, we must consider more than just the landmark changes in women's status.  Structural and organizational changes are required in most areas of science, engineering and technology that will re-order rank, role, and even privilege. In addition, this broad platform for understanding RR also requires that the transformation of America's economy, society and culture be taken into account.  We have moved from a primarily agricultural, small town, white, European dominated country to an urban/exurban, globally connected and rapidly growing population, across all race and ethnic groups in a globally connected Digital Age.  New roles are emerging for private voluntary organizations (PVO), unions.  Moreover, international standards, regulations and outside social forces, which once had no place in corporate internal decisions, now come to bear. We experience these changes at rates faster than anything previously experienced in the human condition. In fact, that speed itself and its consequences for decisions as well as actions is one of the great strains of our changing lives. Differences exist today that were absent earlier in the century.  For example, the profoundly different life experiences of multiple generations can leave different age groups out of touch with each other's perceptions, behaviors and feelings on any number of issues.  Demographers claim that shared attitudes and behaviors can produce one generation with more in common across national, racial, gender or ethnic differences than with people like themselves of a different generation. Anyone with a teenager in the house today understands that reality. The issues that help recruit and retain women and minorities today may be very different from those of just a few years ago.  Companies must address this new reality too.

 To all this we must add the upheaval produced across the century by a worldwide depression, two world wars and numerous regional "conflicts," plus a repeated boom and bust economic cycle.  These turbulent social upheavals have left individuals seeking connection and meaning.  The cumulative impact of the changes on the family and workforce are reverberating through our companies and institutions today as we continue the transfer from a world of atoms to world of bits. Professor Yu Xie at the University of Michigan, who studies gender issues at every age in scientific careers, declares that today's dilemmas have "deep social, cultural and economic roots."   

Understanding the transitional nature of life today helps to explain but not excuse the reality of today's failings in SET recruitment and retention.  Just as there is no one cause, there are no simple solutions.  But there are lessons learned, insights from closer inspection of past efforts and fresh thinking that can lead toward solutions.

How we have worked to integrate these changes

"We can change behaviors but not attitudes"

Corporate policies on diversity are in fact behavioral regulations, inspired by Federal legislation and related court rulings, which guarantee equal access under the law and prohibit gender discrimination.  Diversity also includes policies around a range of follow-on federal and state regulations and laws in a myriad of economic and social legislation from the 60s, 70s and 80s.  Despite nearly thirty years of diversity work, often at the most senior levels, with direct access to principals and CEOs, we are forced to acknowledge that we are far short of success in changing the numbers on recruitment or retention.  Most noticeable is the still impenetrable "glass ceiling" of senior levels.  In a time of "what gets measured gets done", the measures we do have say clearly that the numbers of women and minorities at senior levels is miniscule.  

A recent article in The Economist  on the continuing "Glass Ceiling" reports the following summary as an example: "Women account for 46.5% of America's workforce and for less than 8% of its top managers; although at big Fortune 500 companies the figure is a bit higher.  Female managers' earnings now average 72% of their male colleagues'.  Booz Allen Hamilton, a consulting firm that monitors departing chief executives in America, found that 0.7% of them were women in 1998, and 0.7% of them were women in 2004.  In between, the figure fluctuated.  But the firm says one thing is clear: the number is "very low and not getting higher."

"Diversity" has become a key word in corporate lexicon and policies, and a booming industry for trainers, researchers and educators.  Yet an entire first generation of senior level Diversity Vice Presidents is moving into retirement with the recognition that progress has been made, but a breakthrough eludes us.  "Best Practices" awards and individual programs demonstrate some successes.  But few are scalable or transferable across all fields.  Moreover, some early indicators are surfacing that tell us programs once looked to as breakthroughs in retaining women, such as Parental Leave, are in declining use because of negative stigmas in the corporate culture attached to their use.  This forces the honest question of whether more of the same is the solution to the recruitment and retention challenge or whether more creative, aggressive and bold actions and leadership are required. As one Silicon Valley executive put it, "What got us here won't get us there."

It is important to note that precise figures on the success and failure of various policies and programs are difficult to quantify.  Differing standards of measure and record keeping between companies, even divisions within companies can vary.  Confidentiality and other institutional policies on personnel and data disclosure make comparative studies difficult even with corporate co-operation.  Concerns about possible future legal actions also lead companies and educational institutions to protect privileged information that could reveal more on successes and failures. Data from corporate exit interviews are not only privileged but HR executives will concede that departing employees will shy away from expressing opinions or insights which they feel might harm their opportunities for future references or returns.

Despite the difficulties some distinct patterns emerge regarding Diversity policies and their effect on cultural change, profits and the demands of implementing them.  Some research, academic and applied, tells us that success with diverse teams doesn't just happen by putting diverse people together.  A key ingredient to success is commitment from the top. When corporate policies on Diversity are clear, actively supported by the highest levels of corporate leadership and enforced at every stage of performance and promotion review, the level of women's advancement rises.  Without that combination of leadership and enforcement, the level of women's advancement slips behind that of male peers.

This is particularly important because in times of leadership change, re-structuring, reorganization, mergers and acquisitions, the decisions on who goes where and who stays may be made by outside consultants or different companies whose policies do not match the commitment and enforcement standards noted above.  In such situations, recent "off the record" experience and internal corporate studies reveal that women more often than men find themselves unemployed, their positions moved to less senior status and pay, or "temporarily transferred" to the non-technical track.  Since most SET companies often have a dual (technical and non-technical) personnel operation, such changes can seriously disrupt a promising mid career and make advancement to senior levels in SET difficult if not impossible.  Monitoring in this kind of situation is critical to maintaining women's progress within institutions and companies.

For many SET workplaces, successful Diversity also needs training in personal skills and communication as well as working on a team and genuine support from all levels of leadership.  This characterization of the IT culture from social psychologists Tapia and Kvasny tell us something of why these skills need to be introduced.  "The IT culture is described as largely white, male-dominated, anti-social, individualistic, competitive, all-encompassing and non-physical.  The ascetic culture has strong in-group and out-group dualisms in which the needs of the disembodied intellect subsume emotional, physical and sensual needs.  This dualism translates into expert and non-expert and to male and female behaviors, attitudes, and values." 

Team building with a diverse group in this culture or similar SET cultures can be a challenge. But recent research also indicates that well managed diversity stimulates creativity and innovation.  Both are primary ingredients of success in today's Knowledge Economy. A big part of the creative process is the social process in the team so the skills and diversity are partners in success. 

Clear, shared goals are another ingredient of Diversity success.  Experience from some unions and companies indicate that team engagement and atmosphere keeps women engaged and willing to stay with teams, projects and companies.  It also inspires that extra commitment often needed to bring a product in on time and on budget.  Ford and its unions as well as the AFL-CIO Women's Division have particular experience with this. Similarly, women often speak to the importance of being part of a team in the whole life cycle of a program or product as part of their career development.  Repeated re-organizations, increased out sourcing in the redesigns of work today can cut into this kind of cross segment learning.  That learning is important to the development of tacit knowledge, which supports the quick decision making critical in many SET settings today.

Anecdotal observations from several HR departments in IT note an important pattern that instructs on a potentially important discovery.  If women are reviewed by an all male group of technical peers their performance ratings lag behind those of their male peers.  If other women are in the peer review group, women do as well or exceed the reviews of male peers. While precise data is lacking, the negative ratings by peers discourage women who feel confident that their work is equal to or better than peers.  It also reflects what researches have identified as the gender stereotypes in SET.  Since there is often no way for women to challenge this kind of evaluation cycle they become discouraged and may then decide to opt out of a group or field where they feel the playing field is not level.  Enough evidence of this pattern has led some companies to  eliminated peer reviews in evaluations but the pattern of bias reflects a persistent gender bias in the SET fields.

Mentoring of women has found recent success and favor as a tool for supporting women in SET.  Care must be taken that Mentoring does not become a "flavor of the month" program that disappears after a short burst of support.  It holds great promise for providing support and "know how" (particularly in knowing and managing the corporate culture) to women who often are one of only a few women in a professional setting.  The formality of Mentoring programs differs by site.  One chemical company found that when the "mentee's" professional success was tied to the mentor's evaluation, there was greater success for everyone.   Many successful senior women often note that the informal, long term, self selecting mentoring they received in their careers was critical to their success.  The support from mentors both within the organizational structure and with personal counseling has been a critical buffer in some situations and a supportive introduction to new people, networks and positions in others.

Available information forces the conclusion that the top levels of corporations (including SET companies) retain a culture of selecting "people like me", i.e. white, males, often linked by formal and informal social networks that form a self perpetuating pyramid at the top which is all but impermeable by women.  Early indications are that as small, successful SET companies grow, they too take on this cultural pattern.  There is increasing evidence of some ethnic diversity among men, particularly if they are among founding members of a company that has grown.  But, the cultures of many Asian and East Asian countries differ from America in their attitudes toward women's role in society so that even a diverse male ethnic make up does not signal better openings for women. In other words, the aggressive recruitment for top women as they graduate from college and graduate schools falls off when recruiting for top corporate positions. 

As the number of women in corporate leadership increases, this pattern is changing slightly but there are no guarantees that the door doesn't close behind the few women who do reach the top.  Moreover, the predominance of senior women is not in the science, technology or engineering track but rather in what SET often refers to as the "soft" sectors of HR, Marketing or Sales so their ability to influence the advancement decisions to bring in women into SET senior positions can be limited.

The obvious pattern of selecting "people like me" for senior positions takes a psychological toll on young and mid career employees alike.  For example, at a recent Leadership Training workshop of carefully selected, diverse, mid level managers, program moderators were surprised to learn that several participants, male and female, were voluntarily moving to reduced time.  Their reason was discouraging.  They believed that despite corporate rhetoric to the contrary, corporate leadership would not reach into their racial, ethnic and gender talent pool for top leadership promotions.  With this in mind they were less willing to make the all out effort for success. This is an example of Widnauer's "Sociology of Science".   Performance on Diversity at the top is critical to retention.

Some researchers prefer to cite this as "preference for" rather than "prejudice against".  Whatever its nomenclature, bringing women to the top and keeping them there will mean reaching beyond the "comfort zone" of many executives. The inescapable reality is that beyond the middle level management, women and minorities are rare.  This has an impact on the aspirations and self expectations of women and minorities. When the reality of "looking up" presents this narrow picture, many promising women will choose to go where they are sought and welcomed and companies loose years of experience, know how and talent. Sociologist Virginia Valian's insights into gender schema and stereotyping in "Why So Slow" are particularly valuable in providing insights into this dynamic. 

For years the study and practice around the recruitment and retention of women has focused on how to make them fit the corporate or academic system and culture. The norm is and has been male.  Business writer, Charles Hampton Turner, speaks of the difficulty for women of moving in and out of cultures in efforts to "fit" corporate expectations.  An important lesson to companies today is to abandon that conformity model and to use the rich differences that women bring at all levels.  The variety and strength in Diversity can expand vision and horizons and foster corporate change as well as economic success.  

Generational attitudes are changing. Women have an strengthened sense of their personal worth and the value of their professional skills.  Their legal rights to equity have been tightly guaranteed throughout their education. Despite the subtle gender discrimination of the educational community, they are often surprised with gender discrimination in the workplace.  This is particularly true if they feel it affects their evaluations. With this in mind and increased network access to employment opportunities they are unwilling to tolerate what they perceive as unequal treatment with little or no recourse and no indication of future change. The corporate culture's intransigence to change, to be more inclusive at senior levels opens the door on their way out.  That lost talent goes to graduate school, new jobs, and time off for family, to start their own businesses or join other start-ups.

Addressing this amorphous domain of "corporate culture" is a challenge because changing corporate cultures is a monumental task. Surely, there are both examples of and models for corporate change.  Peter Drucker and others have worked in this area for decades and provide a body of literature and experience rich in learning.  It is corporate learning that is essential here.  Companies and their leaders need to learn from the on going failure on retention.  They also need the long view of the future, which makes it clear that companies desperately need to recruit and retain skilled, experienced and talented women to compete successfully. Lacking the resources that SET women bring,  the talent pool is too shallow.  Without that long view into the future and its changing challenges, the delusion that the future will be more of the same gives space to think, "Well, we made it this far without women, why change our culture for Diversity's sake."

Stress and the extreme levels of time demanded at senior corporate levels are prompting the young, more family conscious generation (both genders) to question how much is necessary and how much is contrived by cultural expectation. And, they question whether that future is what they want.  Early thinking was that "connectivity" in the workplace would lessen or eliminate the need for "face time" and performance evaluations would focus on product rather than presence.  This has not proven to be the case.  Instead the communications explosion has put people on call 24/7/365 and intensified the pressure to be available all the time. Acknowledging that business realities reign and demands are enormous they still ask,  24/7/365 really necessary?

Planning ahead on assignments and time is a partner to managing work life balance.  Breaking from face time is important for women who often need more flexibility because of family demands. They increasingly ask, "Why not get it right the first time?" Even with an understanding of first to market pressures, an IT woman summarized it this way for a recent Report to the National Science Foundation, "When your manager and the system only care and measure how many bugs you can get out of a system rather than how you design a system so that it doesn't have bugs, you won't get credit or promotion."

Some women who have left the few top positions in SET companies explain it simply as being unwilling to live in the culture that moves beyond competition to a "corrosive atmosphere".  To keep top women it may be necessary to modify behavior and culture at the top so that the intense and real pressures of corporate life don't mean what some call a poisonous atmosphere.  The deceased IT guru, Anita Borg, suggested that corporate leadership "change the culture, not the women." 

Changing, even altering corporate cultures will take tremendous insight and awareness.  It means recognizing the long term cost of not changing the culture.  With the high stakes of loosing critical and rare talent, it is imperative that leaders learn from their past retention failures.  Daniel Boorstein, author and former Director of the Library of Congress put it this way, "Planning for the future without learning from the past is like planting cut flowers."  That perspective is valuable here.

How are we doing at it?  Locking in gains and going further

"There is more than one way to a destination."

As noted previously, precise numbers and measures on retention are difficult to accumulate for a number of reasons.  Studying the available data and research on the subject is, of course, valuable.  A breakthrough on issues controlling proprietary data would be a great help to further useful information although the variables may not meet all of the criteria for "scholarly research". Informal sharing of data among groups within industries and from women's discussions of the issues would assist in pin pointing where and why we loose women.  This will take co-operation with legal departments and beyond but the knowledge is important.

Figures from the Department of Labor, U.S. Census, informal surveys, advocacy organizations (such as Catalyst) and professional associations' render some relevant data.  It all consistently tells the same story.  Little has changed since the Labor Department's Glass Ceiling Commission Report ten years ago.  Certainly there are improvements but trend lines show that they are regrettably gradual and incremental.  Beyond mid-level management in most companies there is little steady progress toward increasing the number of senior women or retaining the women who reach top levels.  

Certainly work-life issues and family responsibilities continue to weigh more heavily on women than men.  But, Catalyst studies and independent research for the National Science Foundation indicate that this is not a driving force in retention in IT.  Women, like men, can and do make arrangements for adequate and creative family and child care.  Also of note is the generational attitude shift with young men. They are increasingly more aware of their role as active participants in family responsibilities and consider work-life and quality of life issues part of their agenda.

Two issues stand out as most important to retention when considering family responsibilities. One is high quality, affordable child care.  The second is access to flexible work arrangements. With increasing responsibility for elderly parents both men and women are called upon to deal with emergencies and the short absences characteristic to elderly care.  In interviews, both HR professionals and successful women cite the importance of maintaining on going contact with the workplace as fundamental to retention.  Making this continued connection possible with assistance on child care and workplace flexibility is key to meeting what is often looked at as the family component of retention.   

The 2000 U.S. Census data showed a small, first time, statically significant percent of well educated, high achieving women leaving the workplace and professional fields for the first time. While there may be exceptions, the data indicate it is a life style choice unique to an economic cohort able to manage on a partner's income.  A closer look at this is merited to determine if it is the leading edge of a long lasting trend or a unique economic- generation snap shot.  Surveys reveal that up to 90% of American women will work part or full time in their lives.  In increasing numbers, they will work to support themselves.  With that reality in mind, the issue of "drop-out" (particularly among highly trained and educated women) is a provocative and a popular topic for speculative journalism.  Whether it is an issue for retention in SET is worth pursuing. 

A notable demographic in both companies and educational institutions is the coming attrition of experienced SET workers as the Baby Boomers retire over the next decade.  In the SET skill set the loss of experienced knowledge will be profound.  Planning for that loss now is critical.  While there may be some voluntary retention, the overall numbers of potential retirees suggests that significant future restructuring and realignment as well as outsourcing as companies adapt to the reality.  This can be an opportunity to make the most of promoting talent at current middle levels.  Women participating in whatever changes are planned and similarly participating in the resulting personnel re-alignments will be critical to protecting gender neutrality and advocating diversity at all levels.

Visiting and understanding the gains in academia for women is valuable.  Slight though they are, recent gains by women in academia may be a leading edge of change. For example, while men still outnumber women in substantial measure at full professorships, at assistant professorships in science and engineering, the gap of men outnumbering women has narrowed to 1.6 to 1. Women are being named as Deans at prominent schools of engineering and they are connected through professional and interest groups to begin the formation of an open gender network of leadership in the field that provides visible role models for women. 

Major education institutions are acting on their stated commitments of bringing women and minorities into senior positions and there are early indicators of success. A public demand for transparency and a link to federal funding that necessitates gender and racial equity are partial drivers for this action.  Whatever the motivator, there are likely lessons to be learned from the successes.  For example, at M.I.T., where an internal audit by women faculty members detailed systemic, institutional discrimination, M.I.T. moved quickly and appropriately, with strong leadership from then President Vest, to correct the situation.  Dr. Susan Hockfield's appointment as President is not the direct result of that study, but it is a strong statement that women do and will continue to have a prominent role at M.I.T and in the sciences.

The appointment of women to top positions opens the door to draw on the contacts from informal as well as formal professional networks that have developed among women.  Women know other women.  They can reach into those networks for fully qualified candidates to fill top positions.  A prime example in the academic community is the open commitment by Princeton's President, Dr. Shirley Tilghman, to bring women into positions from Provost to Deans at all levels. She has succeeded with locating and bringing on board a host of talent that is energizing Princeton and demonstrating how a more diverse faculty and administration presents a more realistic picture of the globally integrated world students will face upon graduation. 

What is not encouraging, but is informative, is the now famous position by Harvard's President, Larry Summers, when he stated that perhaps women were failing to reach science's senior fields because of innate genetic differences with men.  There is more than adequate research to disprove his assertion.  But, his "outing" of this issue did a service by exemplifying the silent gender stereotyping that women face at all levels in the SET fields.  It also energized and elevated a process at Harvard, now led by Dr. Barbara Grosz, Higgins Professor of Natural Sciences at Harvard that will examine institutional attitudes and policies regarding women in science at Harvard.  Among other issues, they will look at the pedagogy of the disciplines and how a re-conceptualization and reordering of the teaching itself can potentially attract and hold women to the fields. A part of their consideration is new pathways to recruitment and retention of women in SET.

Corporations are also acting on Diversity commitments with mixed results. IBM stands out as the company that has most transparently worked to transform their corporate culture to one that values and supports Diversity for its own business success as well as general altruistic purposes. Many other examples exist, particularly with one particular program that they feel helps.  HR Departments, Diversity Councils of groups like The Conference Board as well as academic and professional journals and popular literature cover the issue. These combined with interviews reveal the following menu of current work on solutions.

Many have companies have developed internal peer groups and network connections that  provide in kind and economic support to outside women and minority professional organizations.  They sometimes find that those networks are helpful in recruiting new talent and finding talent in house that might have been overlooked.  As senior executives interact with these networks they experience first hand the strength of difference while also demonstrating the company commitment to diversity.  This direct contact and networking has proven a successful way to find and encourage SET talent in several companies.  The internal peer networks also allow women to know each other across functions.  In SET, where the numbers of women can be small, this expanding sense of belonging in a company aids retention.  Networks also foster the development of informal mentoring partnerships that can help to promote the careers of women at evaluations and promotion sessions.

Recent numbers on the "pipeline" of women entering and graduating the SET fields have some good news. In 2003 women in earth, atmospheric and ocean studies earned 33% of PhD's surpassing the 32% of PhD's earned by women in chemistry, the 20% in computer sciences, the 19% in physics and the 17% in engineering.  The numbers of women in Computer Science (CS) continue to slide. The proportion of women in life sciences continues to exceed their proportion in math and physics.   In a significant initiative at the undergraduate level, Carnegie Mellon University has commenced a program of outreach recruitment and focused support to bring women into their CS program and keep them there.  Detailed in "Unlocking the Clubhouse" the authors and CMU are continuing to collect data on their program and make it available to the public. 

New entry points to the technology field are evidenced as certificate granting programs and community colleges turn out graduates whose profile is a woman in her mid 30's, already employed, minority African-American or Hispanic.  This is a cohort of women who see technology as an employment opportunity.  They are willing, sometimes against great odds, to get that necessary prerequisite to advancement in the growing SET fields. Clear that they will be working all their adult lives to support themselves and their children, these motivated women are a potential source of productive SET talent in a place not usually recruited. Many companies, short on qualified personnel, are looking to educational options other than degree granting universities for particular skills.  This makes people with Certificate and on site electronic training a new recruitment and retention pool.

Along this same line, companies are reaching out directly to the large number of older women who are returning to college to complete their education.  With the majority of college graduates women, now and projected into the future, this is also a new talent source.  Experience in some companies indicates that conveying the excitement and fulfillment from work in technology as a starting point for introducing an SET career trumps the usual stress on the pre-requisites and difficulties inherent to SET.  Positive recruitment of this mature, motivated cohort is making the most of a demographic reality and can go a long way toward bringing new talent into a company. Multiple studies show that creativity is a key ingredient to successful work today.

In another example, colleges such as Smith are experimenting with new curricula models that they hope will engage increasing numbers of students and move them through to graduate engineering.  Some advanced SET programs are actively recruiting among the humanities in their colleges, searching for students who can be late entries to their programs and follow new designs for meeting requirements toward graduation.  Organizations like the Anita Borg Institute for Women and Technology have run successful programs on leading campuses linking practical problem solving to technology, a link that brings in interested but not committed talent.  A good department can "close" on the commitment and grow a SET graduate.

How SET is taught and described is not inconsequential.  Research shows the characteristics of learning and work that women are looking for.  They want work that is inspiring, purposeful and fun.  They want to solve real life problems and engage in science that will change the world for ever, or engineering that will transform the built world, clean it up, and make it harmonize with nature.  There are real jobs doing this, jobs that need SET to accomplish the task but they are rarely put to women as inspirational possibilities. Taking recruitment beyond course pre-requisites or retention beyond this quarter's profitability means adding vision. 

Viewing SET as a critical source of solutions to currently unsolvable problems pressing in on our lives and cultures captures the imagination of diverse populations.  For example, almost half of the world's population of 6 billion people lives in cities, one third of that number in slums.  The human deprivation and environmental consequences of this demographic reality are unavoidably affecting everything from global transport of goods to worldwide health.  In rapidly changing and volatile political and environmental climates it is unavoidably clear that we can no longer afford to avoid long term issues of water, waste disposal, housing and food to name a few.  The depth and breadth of challenges that confront modern society on all fronts look to SET for answers.  

These fields can attract women who are excited by the potential for solving problems, meeting human needs, inventing something that never existed before and perhaps even achieving fame and fortune.  Unfortunately, we hear from Princeton University's Dean of Engineering and Applied Science, Maria Klawe that Physical Education is the fastest growing major in colleges today. It is unclear whether the small but increasing presence of women in visible, key SET roles will prove a tipping point to greater overall success in recruitment and retention.  But it is clear that without leadership to articulate the promise in solving the persistent problems women experience in SET, the numbers will not change and the slipping away of talent is incalculable.

Who stays:

"Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astare did and she did it going backward in heels."

While there isn't much hard data profiling the SET women who stay in corporations, what we learn about why they stay can provide informative insights.  In recent interviews with 20 women from the IT field several characteristics stand out.  They are worth bearing in mind as the search for solutions to retention proceeds.  These women  have ignored or overcome the early and consistent cultural barriers to their presence in the field.  They have excelled at their studies in the rigorous academic process and they continue to value and work for a personal and balanced life.  But these other qualities define them:

• Love the work and find it exhilarating and challenging
• Comfortable with, even enjoy competition... and often "win"
• Long hours are stimulating as well as disruptive
• Achievements are deeply valuable
• Love the challenge; challenge is "fun"
• Love team work
• Good social and communication skills
• Good support networks
• Ignore the rest

The stakes:

"You never cross the same river twice."

Tomorrow will not look like today.  The rapid and profound changes of the last century will pale compared to what most projections for the future hold.  Profound realignments of political and economic power, demographic transitions, resource demand and supply pressures and environmental challenges are but a few examples of what we face.  No fields are more looked to for solutions than science, engineering and technology.  It is in fact likely that even those fields will have whole new formulations fifteen years from now as they morph from advance to advance.

What is lacking is talent.  Nowhere is more pressed for SET talent than American corporations both here and abroad. During the last decade's economic and technical explosion companies found themselves constantly searching for talent.  The home grown "pipeline" of talent did not have the depth or breadth to respond to the need (and current indications are that without a major intervention of some kind it will not have it for the foreseeable future).   H-1B visas filled a critical personnel gap with foreign talent for years. 

Since the immigration issues created after 9/11, it is clear that foreign talent will not be enough to meet industry needs and volatile international conditions could produce problems in making foreign students and graduates a reliable talent source.  Improving economic opportunities in "home" countries are luring both students and talented staff developed here to return home. Out sourcing out has a limit. We have no option but to cultivate every existing talent and retain it in the work place if we are to meet the challenges of tomorrow in international competition. 

No one plan will suffice.  There are great differences in the attractions, education, training and experiences needed in science, engineering and technology.  A research biologist is not a production engineer. A mechanical engineer is not a materials engineer.  Obvious and subtle answers will be necessary in solving the problem and meeting the challenge.  New modes of co-operation as well as competition will be needed.  Appropriate adaptations in laws, regulations, standards and international compliance will be necessary. 

Other countries are not as complacent as we are today.  Loosing the lead in SET can be devastating to the long term economic future of companies and the country. 

In South Korea, India, China and Singapore, for example, national leaders have recognized the potential social and economic drivers of SET talent.  They have established dynamic new education models and facilities to meet the compelling education, research and recruitment demands of the field.  New formulations of government funding and public private partnerships that provide critical resources for R&D and continued SET abound in these as well as European countries.

The international competition is on for leadership and dominance in every field.  From stem cell research to artificial intelligence, from nanotechnology to transportation and communications the speed of development and intensity of competition are real.  Pure research for the "white space" of new ideas and inventions abounds.  Retaining talent with the training, experience and creativity in well-managed, diverse teams is essential to retaining the lead. 

The potential for incredible breakthroughs in every field of SET are both mind boggling and inspiring.  But through it all one reality prevails.  Science, engineering and technology are the driving forces of a prosperous economy for this nation and its national and global companies.  Each success in computational technology finds purpose in science as well as games.  There is increasing interdependence in the fields.  Together they create an historic synergy and potential for progress and profit. 

Companies and their leaders must look beyond the next quarter's profits and the market's expectations to address this issue boldly and take some risks in finding solutions.  This is a collective need. 

We need to educate the public in order to accomplish this and we can use our experience in selling ideas and visions as well as products.  We will have to educate political leaders but we have experience and success in achieving legislative goals at state local and federal levels.  We will have to educate ourselves and our Boards about the importance of a future view that includes change…the kind of change we can anticipate and prepare for. We have to understand and believe that our long term survival and success depend on the innovation, creativity and experience of personnel in SET.  And finally, we will need to inspire, to make young girls and boys, women and men believe they can excel at SET and math even if they are "hard" subjects. 

This nation's past political and economic success are based upon our ability to face challenges squarely and move on to invent solutions.  We only need to look at the mobilization of a WWII work force dependent on women to know there is a national precedent for sweeping aside gender bias and stereotypes when the commitment is there to get a job done.  In the world of Rosie the Riveter's "We Can Do It", gender meant less than skill and availability.

The post war GI Bill opened the floodgates of learning.  Educational excellence and energy prevailed.  Returning veterans poured into colleges and universities for the educations so instrumental to the educated workforce that developed in the 50s.  The 60s race to the moon for space dominance generated a national mobilization to build science and engineering talent in our national education systems and work force at all levels. We produced a cadre of teachers and students whose knowledge, skills and daring creativity put 12 men on the moon and returned them safely to earth.  The next generation invented a Digital Age and Information Economy and global integration.  Generations fell in love with the challenges of science, engineering and technology.  They "got it" when President Kennedy inspired with his words that, "we do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard." 

With that moon landing generation moving into retirement, there is a profound loss of experience and expertise, which makes the demand for talent as pressing today as it was 40 years ago.  We have no option but to cultivate every existing talent and retain it in the work place if we are to meet the challenges of tomorrow in international competition

In Collapse author Jared Diamond cites five main reasons for societies' collapse.

 Reviewing them is instructive:

• Failure to see the problem
• Conflicting interests with no resolution at higher levels than self interest
• Failure to examine and understand the past
• Failure to think long term, especially regarding the consequences of action and inaction
• Stupidity