Category Archives: Mentoring & Other Business

Information in this entry is taken from my experience since 2001 managing Sun’s SEED Engineering-wide world-wide mentoring program, and also from the Mentoring@Sun general mentoring program and new Vice President program managed by Helen Gracon. This is part of a continuing series on mentoring programs, answering some of the questions I am most frequently asked. Other entries in this series:

• Internal or External Mentoring Program? (30 June 2009)
• Formal vs. Informal Mentoring (12 February 2009)

Mentor Selection Systems

I have seen four kinds of formal mentor selection systems:

1. Mentee evaluates potential mentors’ Demonstrated Accomplishments, experience, personality, capabilities, and skills, then creates a prioritized list of preferred mentors (SEED calls this a “Mentor Wish List”). Mentoring program staff approaches mentors on behalf of mentees.
2. Mentor and mentee each use Self-identified Competency lists to indicate strengths and weaknesses. Mentoring program matches based on list compatibility. Mentees are given two mentors to contact. Mentoring@Sun uses this system.
3. A combination of the two options above.
4. Assignment of mentors by management.

This entry will discuss formal systems using Self-identified Competency vesus those using Demonstrated Accomplishment for mentor selection.

Cognitive Bias

I am going to take a small detour to introduce the concept of cognitive bias, specifically the Dunning-Kruger effect humorously described by Justin Kruger and David Dunning, (then both of Cornell University) in their much-cited and entertaining paper “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own. Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments.” (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1999, Vol. 77, No.6. 1121-1134). Two findings from that paper which are pertinent to mentor selection are:

• “the incompetent will tend to grossly overestimate their skills and abilities”
• “participants in the top quartile tended to underestimate their ability and test performance relative to their peers”

Kruger and Dunning quote Charles Darwin (1871): “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.” That is, people are often bad at knowing what they are good at.

I recommend reading this paper not only to understand cognitive bias but also to enjoy passages such as:

• “…knowledge about the domain does not necessarily translate into competence in the domain, one can become acutely — even painfully — aware of the limits of one’s ability. In golf, for instance, one can know all about the fine points of course management, club selection, and effective ‘swing thoughts,’ but one’s incompetence will become sorely obvious when, after watching one’s more able partner drive the ball 250 yards down the fairway, one proceeds to hit one’s own ball 150 yards down the fairway, 50 yards to the right, and onto the hood of that 1993 Ford Taurus.”
• “In sum, we present this article as an exploration into why people tend to hold overly optimistic and miscalibrated views about themselves. …Although we feel we have done a competent job in making a strong case for this analysis, studying it empirically, and drawing out relevant implications, our thesis leaves us with one haunting worry that we cannot vanquish. That worry is that this article may contain faulty logic, methodological errors, or poor communication. Let us assure our readers that to the extent this article is imperfect, it is not a sin we have committed knowingly.”

Self-identified Competency Systems

Cognitive bias is important because most mentor selection systems rely on Self-identified Competency lists. In a Self-identified Competency System, mentors and mentees are presented with lists of competencies. Each picks competencies that they think they have. The system then proposes mentor-mentee pairings based on comparing list selections. (What I call a Self-identified Competency selection system, Peg Boyle Single and Carol Muller of MentorNet call “Bi-directional Matching”. See “When Email and Mentoring Unite” in Creating Mentoring and Coaching Programs from the ASTD In Action Series, by Phillips and Stomei, 2001.)

Competency lists vary widely depending on the context and goals of the mentoring program but examples include:

• Negotiation
• Customer Focus
• Building Trust
• Listening Effectively
• Strategic Decision Making
• Selling the Vision
• Building Successful and Effective Dispersed Teams
• Technology Impact Assessment
• Working Across Cultures
• Network Design and Architecture

Those using a Self-identified Competency Selection System should be aware of cognitive bias as it may get in the way of finding a good match. That is, both the mentee and potential mentor will probably not be objective in assessing strengths and weaknesses (competencies), so the match may be based on a false compatibility evaluation. However, the seemingly-objective way in which the match was made (how can you go wrong picking from a list?) may mask selection errors until they are demonstrated in experience, frustrating both mentor and mentee.

An inappropriate mentor selection system may mask errors.

Competency lists can be used to control the scope of learning in a mentoring program. So, if a Vice President wants to direct her organization to learn more about working with virtual or dispersed teams, she could pick a list of competencies which had to do with that skill area, thus encouraging mentor and mentee to discuss the desired topic. This may limit the scope of discussions (which can be good or bad, depending on what the program sponsor and participants are looking for). Controlling competency scope will also limit which mentors are considered (or available). Some mentees and mentors will find the preferred discussion topic too simplistic and may either break off their relationship or ignore the sponsor-preferred topic limitations.

When the competencies are specific to a particular job or profession, a Self-identified Competency Selection system works best when the mentor and mentee share a professional context and interpret the competency lists similarly. For example, if both mentor and mentee are in Information Technology Operations, they will understand the competency “Identity Services” to mean “experience with the design and implementation of a multi-level identity/authorization strategy” but someone in Marketing Communications would probably interpret “Identity Services” very differently. The professional context may also be one of seniority. If the mentor and mentee are both Vice Presidents, they are likely to share an interpretation at a higher organizational level, which is less likely if the mentor is a Vice President and the mentee is a junior Engineer. Shared context is less important when the competencies are soft skills, such as negotiating, public speaking, conflict management, etc.

Demonstrated Accomplishments and SEED

SEED is one example of a mentoring system which relies on Demonstrated Accomplishments for mentor selection. About 70% of SEED mentors are executives. A different mentoring program, run by Helen Gracon out of the Sun Learning Services group for new Sun Vice Presidents, also uses Demonstrated Accomplishments for mentor selection. Both programs are regularly given 90% or higher satisfaction ratings by participants.

The SEED program maintains a list of Potential SEED Mentors (over 450 now). The list includes the name, job title, division, and city/state/country of each potential mentor, plus links to biographical information such as SEED mentoring history and evaluation, personal web pages, blogs, executive profiles, LinkedIn profiles, resumes, etc.

The SEED program has an open list of potential mentors: any senior Sun Engineer or executive is eligible. SEED participants are not limited to the choices on the Potential SEED Mentors list. About a third of the mentors in most terms are new to SEED and were not originally on the Potential SEED Mentors list. The SEED program welcomes Mentors from both the business and technical tracks: Distinguished Engineers, Principal Engineers, Sun Fellows, Senior Staff Engineers, Directors and Vice Presidents of Engineering, and other senior engineers and executives from any area of Sun are all welcome as Mentors. Potential mentors must be at least principal level; the great majority are at executive level (Director or Vice President or equivalent). SEED Mentors have served from all areas of Engineering worldwide, plus Operations, Sales, Service, Legal, Information Technology, Finance, Human Resources, and Marketing. In creating their Mentor Wish List, each SEED participant needs to make two hard decisions:

1. What they want to learn
2. Who has already accomplished the kind of things they want to do
   (that is, who is already down the path that they see themselves walking)

The SEED Engineering mentoring program takes a long-term view and does not have a preference for one kind of learning over another. That is, the mentoring partnership learning does not have to have anything to do with the participant’s current job. Some people want to learn to be better technical managers, others want to know how to get their ideas to customers faster. Many want to improve their soft skills: public presentation or speaking, negotiating, conflict management, and coaching. Still others want to improve their work and family balance and still have a great career. It takes time and mature consideration to work through all of this. Creating the Mentor Wish List is probably the hardest part of the SEED program.

Selecting a mentor based on their Demonstrated Accomplishments is more obviously subjective and time consuming than selection based on Self-identified Competencies. However, in my experience with SEED, there are fewer mis-matches and greater diversity in matched pairs using Demonstrated Accomplishments. Diversity in SEED terms includes demographic, geographic, professional variety. That is, if the mentee feels free to discuss a very broad range of topics, and has an open list of mentors from which to select, communication is encouraged across organizational, professional, geographic, and demographic silos.

Mentoring can effectively create bridges between professional silos.

Demonstrated Accomplishment vs. Self-identified Competency Selection Systems

Given the disadvantages of a Self-identified Competency Selection System, why would a mentoring program use this option? In short, such a system is relatively easy to automate so it is faster and can support a much larger participant group. That is, it scales: the start-up time is shorter and the administrative overhead is less. There will be more mis-matches but that risk is acceptable in some mentoring programs. For example, if the program is being offered to a large group of junior staff whose potential mentors are just one or two seniority levels above them, the consequences of a mis-match are relatively low. Mentoring@Sun has used a Self-identified Competency Selection System for many successful years.

On the other hand, if the mentees are drawn from a smaller group of high potential, highly promotable, high value staff who will mostly be matched with executive mentors (as is the case with SEED), or are solely from the executive ranks (as is the case in Sun’s new Vice President mentoring program), the consequences from a mis-match are much greater. When the great majority of the mentors are executives, mis-matches are too expensive in terms of wasted time and potential damage to staff and program reputation. A Demonstrated Accomplishment system requires a “high touch” approach consistent with the best way to work with most executives whose time is both limited and valuable. Some program aspects can be automated (such as mentee and mentor application, and match tracking) but the development of each mentee’s potential mentor list is research-intensive and most communications are personal.

A Demonstrated Accomplishment system also needs a very senior mentoring program staff member to act as a broker or matchmaker. The broker needs to be a good communicator to help make a great match. It helps if the broker is well known and has a good reputation so that potential mentors will respond promptly and provide an opportunity for the broker to tell them about the mentee who has requested them. Getting an executive to respond to the first email or even pick up the phone can sometimes be the greatest challenge in making a match.

Images Copyright 2009 Katy Dickinson

I mostly write about the SEED Engineering-wide world-wide mentoring program I have managed and designed since 2001. However, Sun has always offered other mentoring programs, many of them managed by Helen Gracon. Sun has had a strong culture and tradition of mentoring, both inside and outside of Engineering, for most of its 27 years. Helen and I have collaborated for many years revising and extending the training materials we use jointly. In true Sun distributed management style, Helen reports to me for the purposes of providing training for SEED while independently managing the Mentoring at Sun (or Mentoring@Sun) program offered internally by Sun Learning Services (SLS).

Series:
This is part of a continuing series on mentoring programs, answering some of the questions I am most frequently asked. For the first entry, see my blog Formal vs. Informal Mentoring. I hope this series will be of interest to those who are starting or currently managing mentoring programs, as well as to mentors and mentees.

Background:
SEED was designed in 2000 by a team that included both Engineering and Human Resources (HR) staff. Since 2001, SEED has been sponsored by Chief Technology Officer Greg Papadopoulos and has reported to him. However, since it started in 1992, Mentoring@Sun has moved from SunU (under HR), to the Software product group, to its current home in SLS. Helen has worked with Mentoring@Sun since 1996.

The top business imperatives that led to the creation of SEED in 2000 were:

1. Identify and enrich the experience of those who can reasonably be expected to rise to the top of Sun Engineering’s individual contributor or management ranks
2. Engender the value of mentoring systemically across Sun Engineering.
3. Build the Engineering community by making and strengthening connections between its members and with the rest of Sun. (Getting people outside of their professional and organizational silos…).
4. Improve the retention of key Engineering staff.
5. Promote and increase the diversity of Engineering leadership in the areas of demographics, professional area, and geographic location.

Benchmarking compares and measures processes and performance.

Benchmarking:
During our time running mentoring programs, Helen and I have learned about many successful ways of mentoring both inside of Sun and more generally. Helen and I are often contacted with questions by other companies with internal programs, companies offering mentoring as a product for sale, non-profit organizations, and academic administrators or faculty. We compare notes and benchmark not only with each other but with external-to-Sun professionals who run mentoring programs.

“Benchmarking” implies comparison and measurement of one system, process, or product and its performance against another. Benchmarking assumes that there is a standard for excellence or set of best practices against which to compare. In mentoring, each program must be tailored to the organization it serves. SEED has been called an industry best practice program but, as we have found each time we have extended SEED into a new area of service, even the best practices must be optimized for particular circumstances.

In addition to collecting information about other mentoring programs, Helen and I also transfer it to others. An example: In 2006, I set up a Grace Hopper Celebration panel called “Mentoring by the Numbers: Research and results drive mentoring programs that last” featuring Carol Muller (founder of MentorNet) and Mary Jean Harrold (who created a technical infrastructure for women faculty at Georgia Tech) in addition to myself. (If you want to know more: the National Center for Women & Information Technology or NCWIT published Practices papers on MentorNet, SEED, and the Georgia Tech mentoring programs.) Also in 2006, Carol Gorski (former Sun HR Director) and I gave a presentation called “5 Years of Mentoring by the Numbers” at the TechLeaders Workshop associated with the Hopper Conference.

Internal or External Mentoring Program?

I am often contacted by companies researching alternatives after they have had a poor experience with an external mentoring company. In short: internal mentoring programs have a longer and costlier startup time but will probably be less expensive and more effective in the long run. External programs have a lower startup time and cost but are likely to be more expensive long term.

Mentoring programs are either internal (developed and managed inside of a company, university, or other institution), external, or a combination of the two. SEED and Mentoring@Sun are examples of internal corporate mentoring programs. Mentor Resources is an example of an external company of good reputation which sells its mentoring process as a service or product. Some organizations combine the two, starting off with an external program as a boost to developing their internal program.

Key areas to compare when deciding on whether to have an internal or external program are: Cost (Startup and Maintenance) and Ownership and Control. Specifically:

Cost (Startup and Maintenance)

• The cost of any mentoring program must be balanced by its benefits if the program is to continue in use. SEED’s priorities are:1. Increase the value, satisfaction, and retention of program Participants and their Mentors.
  2. Build Sun’s Engineering community by making and strengthening connections between its members and with the rest of Sun.
  3. Work to balance the diversity of Participants in terms of demographics, professional area, and geographic location.

  Since 2001, the SEED program has a proven track record of strong diversity, very high satisfaction, high regard by management, and high retention. SEED participants as a group earn more promotions and higher performance ratings than Sun overall.

• Internal mentoring programs cost more to start up because the organization has to think through what is wanted, and then develop key program elements: Process, Training and Educational Materials, Management and Web Tools, and Staff. For example: SEED’s development took a design team, a marketing team, a metrics team, and a content team working for a year. After the kick off, many of those original team members continued to participate in the program as mentors or team members. One Distinguished Engineer on the design team went on to be a five-time SEED mentor. That is, SEED’s design process created both the program itself and the personal and organizational buy-in to make it successful. SEED was set up to be a long-term program.
• Once an internal program is running, there is little ongoing cost other than staffing (and the mentoring pair’s time). Internal program costs can be managed to match company requirements, going up in good times (for example, paying for travel for mentoring pairs working at a distance who may not otherwise meet) or turned way down if company circumstances so require.
• External mentoring companies offer expertise, plus existing processes and tools – all needed for success and all taking years to develop. Externally provided mentoring programs are cheaper and easier to start. However, costs may be much higher than anticipated and contracted payments may be substantial (and continue as long as the program is used). Bringing in an outside group may also require significant internal marketing for the program to succeed.
• In costing out any mentoring program, consider what internal support staff are required. Privacy and confidentiality laws and practices will limit information access of an external company so Human Resources support will be required whether the program is internal or external. Also, communications require insider information, so a program manager (possibly plus administrative staff) may have to be assigned whether the program is internal or external.
• Mentoring@Sun started with an externally provided program but Sun’s experience was so poor that Helen was hired to turn it into a more effective internal mentoring program. A second external company was later tried, with similar negative results.
• The SEED program was developed by Sun to address Engineering organization needs unmet by Mentoring@Sun. That is, SEED is an internal mentoring and leadership growth program designed to meet the needs of a key professional area, running in parallel with a more general internal program.
• The cost of any mentoring program may be offset by reduced cost in other areas. For example, the SEED program has improved retention (reducing staff replacement costs) and SEED participants as a group earn more promotions and higher performance ratings than Sun overall (measures of improved productivity). Diversity programs may also benefit from being associated with mentoring. For example, Women and non-US staff have for many years taken advantage of the SEED program at a consistently higher rate than their representation in Engineering.

SEED is Sun Engineering’s worldwide mentoring and leadership growth program, running in parallel with the more general mentoring program called Mentoring@Sun

Ownership and Control

• Strength in a mentoring culture develops over time. The program may start off small (SEED had just 32 participants in its first term in 2001) but will grow as mentors, mentees, and managers experience good value. SEED now runs eleven overlapping terms annually with up to fifty pairs per term. Over time, mentoring experience can be written into staff development goals and become part of expectations for leadership growth. SEED was started as a new college hire mentoring program supporting just two Sun divisions. It now offers four kinds of terms (new hires, established staff, PreSEED junior staff, and special pilots) and supports Sun Engineering staff working in Software, Systems, Microelectronics, Storage, Services, Sales, Labs, Operations and all other Engineering professional areas worldwide.
• Mentoring programs benefit from recommendations by happy mentees, mentors, or managers. Managers and participants may return as mentors. 25% of those on SEED’s potential mentors list were program mentees before they signed up as mentors. Participants develop a feeling of ownership: program completion becomes a matter of pride. I see SEED references on resumes, in blogs, and in promotion justification statements.
• Another benefit of program ownership is flexibility and the opportunity to tailor mentoring practices to the culture and information of the organization. With an internal program, the company keeps and controls its competency and knowledge of the program. The company can integrate an internal program into its staff development goals and it can make internal/private information (such as annual performance review scores) part of the program.

We are two and a half weeks into the mentor matching cycle for the
SEED and PreSEED mentoring
terms. Both terms formally started today and will run for the next six
months. 58% of the 80 participants (mentees and mentees-to-be) are
already matched with their new mentors. This is the time of each cycle when
the mentees start to get frustrated waiting for their new mentors.

For me, there is a balance between nudging potential mentors (emails
with subjects like “Last Chance” and “Any news?” and “Please Reply!”)
or deciding to give up and go to the next lower priority name on the
participant’s Mentor Wish List. I have to be careful about going on:
twice already in the last two weeks a mentor contacted me long after
their deadline and asked to work with the mentee.

I just sent out nine more emails either reminding potential mentors
to get back to me or asking a new potential mentor to review the
resume and other information of a participant who has expressed
interest in learning from them. In a normal term, 80% of the participants
will be matched with one of their top four mentor choices. However, that
does mean that 20% will not. Nobody wants to be in that second category.

This term, 387 unique mentors were requested on Wish Lists. There were ten
mentors who had more than one participant who asked for them at #1
priority. There were 39 mentors who had five or more participants
ask for them. The most potential mentors I have
contacted for one participant so far this term is six. However,
that potential mentor seems to be seriously interested in the match.
Another participant about whom I have only contacted three potential
mentors is nonetheless on #10 out of his ten name Mentor Wish
List. If #10 is not a good fit, I will go back to the participant
for more names.

The participant (potential mentee) is not kept informed of each step
in the match process. They do not know which potential mentor from
the Wish List is contacted. Potential mentors need to have space
and time to consider the possibilities of a mentoring partnership
without risk of offending the potential mentee or interfering with
future communications with them or their manager.

Everyone does gets matched eventually…

About two weeks ago, I started the mentor matching cycle for Sun’s Global Sales and Service (GSS) SEED term and a PreSEED mentoring term. As of now, 37 out of 80 participants have been matched with mentors (46%). There were quite a few potential mentors who delayed replies until they got home from last week’s JavaOne conference. Both terms will run 15 June – 15 December 2009.

PreSEED participants are limited to “principal level” mentors (just below executive level). The 26 new PreSEED mentors have titles like Senior Staff Engineer, Manager, and Senior Program Manager. The 11 SEED mentors matched so far have titles like Senior Director, Vice President, and Distinguished Engineer.

Most of the mentees in both terms are based outside of the USA. The mentor and mentee often work at great distances from each other. So far, in addition to pairs who are both in the USA, we have pairs working from:

• 1. Bangalore, India and Tokyo, Japan
  2. Brush Prairie WA, USA and Sale, UK
  3. Burlington, MA USA and Velizy, France
  4. Camberley UK and Ratingen, Germany
  5. Hamburg, Germany and McLean VA, USA
  6. Hong Kong and Chengdu, China
  7. Kirchheim-heimstetten, Germany and Zaventem, Belgium
  8. London and Camberley UK
  9. Menlo Park CA, USA and Bangalore, India
  10. Menlo Park CA, USA and Beijing, China
  11. Menlo Park CA, USA and Madrid, Spain
  12. Montbonnot Saint Martin, France and Padova, Italy
  13. Prague, Czech Republic and Madrid, Spain
  14. Prague and Prague, Czech Republic
  15. Santa Clara CA, USA and Budapest, Hungary
  16. Santa Clara CA, USA and Gothenberg, Sweden
  17. Santa Clara CA, USA and Rome, Italy
  18. Somerset NJ, USA and Oslo, Norway

Quarterly SEED satisfaction reports over many years have shown no statistical difference between working locally and at a distance. The average program satisfaction reported tops 90%.

Mentor Matching Status

My first 22 email invitations for potential mentors in the Global Sales and Service (GSS) SEED term went out 27 May. The PreSEED emails went out the next day. In the first week after starting these mentor matching cycles, 22 of the 80 participants were matched (28%). This is low for a usual term but
with the Sun-Oracle transition uncertainties plus JavaOne this week, it is to be expected. Three more have been matched today already, so responses are picking up.

Both terms will run 15 June – 15 December 2009. The majority of both terms’ participants work outside of the USA. Only 7 of the mentor-mentee pairs matched so far are local to each other. Fortunately, quarterly SEED satisfaction reports show no statistical difference between working locally and at a distance. To see how the SEED mentor matching system works, read “SEED: Sun engineering enrichment & development” Research Disclosure Database Number 482013, defensive publication in Research Disclosure, Published in June 2004, Electronic Publication Date : 17 May 2004 (5 pages, PDF format)

Locations

21 GSS SEED Mentee Locations
Belgium   1,   5%
France    1,   5%
Germany   1,   5%
Hungary   1,   5%
Italy     1,   5%
Japan     2,   10%
Norway    1,   5%
Slovakia  1,   5%
Spain     1,   5%
Sweden    3,   14%
Switzerland    1,   5%
United Kingdom 3,   14%
USA       4,   19%
7 GSS Mentor Locations (so far)
Germany   1
India     1
UK        1
USA       4
58 PreSEED Mentee Locations:
9 China,    16%
2 Czech Rep, 3%
1 Germany,   2%
5 India,     9%
1 Ireland,   2%
5 Italy,     9%
2 Japan,     3%
1 Russia,    2%
2 Spain,     3%
1 United Arab Emirates (Dubai), 2%
2 UK,        3%
27 USA,     47%
17 PreSEED Mentor Locations (so far)
Czech Rep   2
France      1
UK          1
USA        13

I started the mentor matching cycle late last week for the 15 June –
15 December 2009
SEED and PreSEED worldwide Engineering mentoring terms.
Sheri Kaneshiro is providing support for the extensive SEED
web tools designed by Tanya Jankot while Tanya is on leave
with her new baby. It takes Sheri and me a little longer to
work everything out but we are making good progress now.
Since the first invitations to 80 potential mentors went out
on 27 May, there have been 12 acceptances (5 for SEEDs
and 7 for PreSEEDs). 68 to go!

Today, I was happy to confirm the last of the 15 rematches for mentees from
four terms whose mentors left Sun since February 2009. SEED has a
standing offer to re-match any mentee whose mentor leaves Sun within
three months of their original match. Rematches are for a full six
months. For some reason, rematches take longer than first matches
but everyone does get matched in time.

On 14 May, the Global Sales and Service (GSS) executive Selection Committee,
made up of six Directors and Vice Presidents, picked the 23 new participants
for the 15 June – 15 December 2009
SEED worldwide Engineering mentoring term. This is the second GSS-only term
for SEED. There were 38 applicants this term. The selection was very difficult.
Participants in the SEED program were chosen based on professional
performance, manager and executive recommendations, and the other
SEED Selection Criteria.

The SEEDs in our second GSS term are an unusual group in several
dimensions: all men, mostly in Europe, plus two countries in which
SEED has not had participants working before: Hungary and Slovakia.
Compare to the more-usual demographic/geographic distribution of the
current PreSEED term announced on

8 May 2009.

The first GSS term also had some unusual metrics.
As I reported on
20 November 2008 and

5 March 2009, that GSS term included few women, and was widely distributed geographically, but ended up with 96% mentoring pairs working at a distance
(where the mentor and mentee are in another state or country). It
will be interesting to see how this second GSS term’s mentor matching
patterns work out.

The 81 new GSS SEED and PreSEED participants are now researching and writing their
3-learning-goal plus 10-name Mentor Wish Lists, due 22 May.

About the New GSS SEED Participants:
Location of Participants
Belgium   1,   4%
France   1,   4%
Germany   1,   4%
Hungary   1,   4%
Italy   1,   4%
Japan   2,   9%
Netherlands   1,   4%
Norway   1,   4%
Slovakia   1,   4%
Spain   1,   4%
Sweden   3,   13%
Switzerland   1,   4%
United Kingdom   3,   13%
USA   5,   22%
Gender of Participants
23 Male, 100%
6 are Managers, 26%
6 are prior SEED or PreSEED applicants, 26%

To learn more about SEED and to read SEED participants’ blogs,
check out
http://research.sun.com/SEED.