Like many women of my generation, I thought of myself as not quite good enough for the various powerful positions in politics.

Baroness Shirley Williams talks openly on radio 4 about how she and many women always think about themselves as the Deputy…the deputy eduction minister but not the education minister, the deputy prime minister but not the prime minister…

Why do so many women although qualified, never put themselves for the top jobs?  Why, when asked do women say they make a good no 2 but not a good no 1?  Why do they often say they are not visionary or entrepreneurial but are more happy just doing the job?

If you go back to show and tell in American schools, more often than not the boys are the first to put their hand up to’ show.’  As girls, we are often taught not to put ourselves forward but stand back and watch from the sidelines.

I have some wonderful, smart confident female friends.  None of them think they would make great leaders or could run their own business.   I am convinced that this has nothing to do with their ability. It is more about the way society and their families set expectations about what girls should do.  Rather than what they could do.

The reason for this perceived lack of ability, according to Baroness Williams, is that women perceive men as ‘giant size’ and themselves as ordinary human size. She concludes by observing that it took all her political life to realise that while those men had projected a giant size image, they were not themselves giants either.

Whatever the reason, the fact remains that while women are not represented in the higher echelons of corporate life (62% of FTSE 100 companies still have NO women on their boards), men continue to dictate what products and services are available to women, particularly in areas such as technology and science which are still dominated by men.

We must ensure women have a voice, if not a seat, in the boardroom.  We must raise the agenda collectively and make sure women are seen not as a ‘niche’ audience but as the future drivers of growth and profitability.

A new book looking at gender in technology professions has just been published by Palgrave.

Performing Gender at Work develops a new understanding gender: that gender is not something one is but rather something one does. This means that we perform gender and are performed by gender. Drawing on detailed academic research in the IT industry, the book outlines three implications of performing gender for the workplace.

First, many skills that are needed for at work today have a gender dimension. Skills like listening and nurturing are said to be perfect for building teams, creating networks and fostering innovation and they are also seen as feminine. However as this book shows it is not women who profit from showing feminine skills: it is men who are valued for performing what is seen as atypical gender behaviour.

Second, telling your own career story is something that is increasingly important in the workplace. The book argues that there is a gender difference in how men and women perform their career stories. Women tend to tell their careers as if they were due to coincidence and luck, whereas men appear to be on a mission to success. Organisations tend to expect the latter in their hiring and promotion decisions.

Third, the book explores the sentiment that gender problems are solved today. We live in a time of ‘gender fatigue’ where we know of the importance of gender equality, but people lack the energy to talk about and address gender inequality. Because of this gender fatigue, we do not have the right language to address gender inequality leading a situation where gender inequality exists but cannot be talked about.

The book urges us to think about stereotypes and biases when we evaluate skills, to give validity to different career stories and to develop a language, which allows us to address gender inequality. The book illustrates vividly how gender is something that is performed in the workplace and which implications this has.

This month’s HBR echoes  much of what Lady Geek has been highlighting for the past 18 months-perfect timing for my upcoming Symbian talk.  Firstly, that women represent the largest market opportunity in the world- in aggregate, the opportunity is bigger than China and India combined.

Secondly that despite this, most companies continue to market to men and fail to explore how they might meet women’s needs. Or they target women as an afterthought through patronizing initiatives.  Dell’s Della being a perfect example.  The NY Times said Dell needed to go to the ‘school of marketing hard knocks.’

And namely, that those companies that can offer tailored products and services are in prime position to win, when the economy recovers.

Interviewing over 12,000 women about everything ranging from their jobs and education to their hopes and fears, BCG found that women are vastly underserved.  Women feel few companies have responded to their need for products and services specifically designed for them. Too many businesses behave if women had no say over purchasing decisions.  With the recovery in sight now, women will represent one of the largest opportunities and are an important force in spurring a recovery.  One of the findings echoes Wave 1 of the Lady Geek Brand Survey;

I hate being stereotyped because of my gender and age, and I don’t appreciate being treated like an infant.”

Interestingly, the research highlights that women are happiest in their early and later years and the lowest point is early and mid forties.  Women struggle to cope with both children and aging parents, so are most receptive to products that help them better control their lives and balance their priorities.

I could not agree more with their final point;

A focus on women as a target market-instead of a geographical target- will up a company’s odds of success when the recovery begins.

I have sat in numerous meetings where clients and agency people alike have spent hours talking about what the rational unique selling point (USP) is of a product.  Very rarely have any of the products I have sold had a truly unique feature or benefit.  And in technology, any unique feature is quickly copied and therefore unsustainable as a long term strategy.

Whats much more unique is the emotional features of selling a technology product.  How it feels to the user.  The retail environment in which it is presented.  The feeling it creates in others who see you with your gadget.  And ultimately the meaningful human interaction and creativity it brings.

So why then do we insist on spending hours debating the rational USP of a product?  Comparing every tiny feature of a product with like for like competitor comparisons?  And talking about one specific rational feature as if it is going to solve every problem you have ever had in your life?

I propose we are asking the wrong answers and therefore coming up with the wrong solutions.  Take my previous article about Nokia’s N97.  Imagine the engineers and the marketing team’s conversation.

“The n97 has so many USPs.  Its sure to be an i-phone killer.”

“For a start it has a 5 megapixel camera.  The i-Phone only has 2.”

“Not to mention the FM transmitter…”

“And the fold out keyboard.”

The list goes on.  Nokia got so hung up on rational USP’s; they forgot about how people use the phone and the feelings it creates in the heart not the head.  A great product is more then the sum of its features. The tragedy of most products is that despite the brilliance of their specification, these features are not how women engage with technology.

One woman told me last week;

I love my i-Phone.  It somehow manages to capture the human expression of technology; whether its flicking the screen like i would with paper or browsing through my photos.  It just feels more human that other tech gadgets”

Pretty Little Head talk about how most marketing focuses on the Achievement Impulse- a male strategy which delivers competitive claims framed through a product advantage (largely based on Baron-Cohen’s work).  Most advertising claims talk about how technology helps men succeed.   In advertising we use ‘male’ language- military language of targets, strategies, campaigns, deployment and so on.

With the missed financial opportunity being at 0.6billion according to Jupiter, as a consequence of failing to connect with women, technology brands need to build marketing programmes around a female mindset and agenda.

Forgetting about USP’s is a good place to start.