I saw something today that disturbed me a bit (see pic). What you see is a free icon set I found with the standard 30, 60 and 90-Day Money Back Guarantee emblazoned in gold. I’ve been seeing similar graphics on websites more and more lately.  We’re partly at fault because…

In case you haven't figured it out yet, social media and search can compliment each other quite well. Social media leads to links, which lead to better search engine ranking. On top of that, a lot of people are simply searching within social networks themselves.

read more

One of your company's most powerful competitive weapons may at this very moment be cleaning out her desk — or contemplating doing so. Can you afford to let her go?

In researching my forthcoming book, Top Talent: Keeping Performance Up When Business Is Down, we found that in the wake of last year's financial crash, high-powered women were more than twice as likely as men — 84 percent compared with 40 percent — to be seriously thinking jumping ship. And when the head and heart are out the door, the rest of the body is sure to follow.

Women are falling victim to two types of attrition: they're being disproportionately let go and they're disproportionately quitting. Yet whether they're jumping or being pushed, figures show that a female exodus is bad for business.

Research conducted by both Catalyst and McKinsey & Company demonstrates that companies with significant numbers of women in management have a much higher return on investment. In addition, a recent study from London Business School shows that when work teams are split 50-50 between men and women, productivity goes up. Gender balance, the research posits, counters groupthink — the tendency of homogenous groups to staunchly defend wrong-headed ideas because everyone in the group thinks the same way.

My favorite study, published last October by CERAM Business School, showed that firms in the CAC 40 (the French equivalent of the Dow Jones Industrial Average) with a high ratio of women in top management showed better resistance to the financial crisis. The fewer female managers a company has, the greater drop in its share price since January 2008.

The facts couldn't be clearer: smart women equal stronger companies.

As we begin to emerge from the global recession, far-seeing firms are building bench strength through programs that provide traction for both their high-performing and high-potential women.

Intel created career development workshops aimed squarely at retaining one of its most at-risk populations: mid-level female engineers. Data collected from exit interviews had revealed that many of these talented technologists were leaving not to spend time with their family but because they no longer felt challenged by or passionate about their work.

In the 21st century, talented people of both sexes often feel stymied by a traditional vertical career path that follows a straight line up a narrow ladder. Rather, they're interested in and open to lateral moves and a variety of "work style" options, such as flex schedules and telecommuting, as long as these options are intellectually and professionally challenging and/or satisfy personal obligations. Unfortunately, if they don't know how to articulate those desires or think they won't be satisfied by their current employer, they'll look elsewhere.

Intel's one-day career workshops encourage participants to identify what work they're truly excited by, as well as the type and quality of work they'd like to do in five, ten and fifteen years. They then practice how to effectively discuss their aspirations with their direct managers, who are also being taught to address the unique needs of mid-level female technologies. "For us, brain share is critical in up and down economies," says Rosalind L. Hudnell, corporate director of diversity. "We're just focused on retaining key talent in these tough times."

An increasing number of companies are teaching their high-potential women to think strategically about their careers — and encouraging their managers to support them.

Johnson & Johnson's program, called "Crossing the Finish Line," aims to provide multicultural director-level women with knowledge, skills and strategies to strengthen their abilities and further their careers, while enhancing their supervisors' ability to create and manage an environment that leverages diversity.

"This is not a remedial program," emphasizes JoAnn Heffernan Heisen, former chief diversity officer. "It's a career acceleration program because they are already recognized as high-potential talent." The four-day seminar has been so successful that a spin-off version now targets multicultural men.

Even firms in the troubled financial sector recognize the need to nurture this neglected resource. UBS recently launched two new programs aimed at supporting female officers. "Connecting with Clients in Turbulent Times" is tailored to the bank's client-facing women who want to take their revenue-generation skills to the next level. "Charting Your Future" is a career-counseling workshop customized for high-powered women in Asia.

"The message from management is that the bank cares," explains Mona Lau, global head of diversity and campus recruiting. "We want you to stay."

Download this success story to learn more about Intel's career development workshop.

The FDIC is bust. The group began 2009 with $30 billion in its insurance fund, but after covering losses at almost 100 insolvent banks so far this year, the fund is now in deficit and will stay in the red until at least 2012.

In 2008, Congress decided to "temporarily" increase the maximum amount of insurable deposits from $100,000 to $250,000 per account. Although the higher limit was set to expire at the end of 2009, Congress has extended it through the end of 2013 to "maintain confidence in the banking system" during the financial crisis. Proponents also argue that the increase is needed to keep pace with inflation, the $100,000 limit having been set in 1980.

These legislative actions were not necessary to protect small depositors -- the main objective of deposit insurance. According to FDIC's own statistics as of June, 2008, 98% of all depositors at FDIC-insured banks were covered by the $100,000 limit. Indeed, the average account balance of all deposits at FDIC-insured banks was $12,665.

The argument about inflation doesn't bear close examination either. Although the consumer price index has risen roughly 150% since Congress set the insurance limit at $100,000 in 1980, on an inflation-adjusted basis, the initial FDIC limit of $5,000 on deposit insurance in 1934 should have risen to only $30,746 in 1980 and approximately $80,000 in 2008.

When the $250,000 limit was extended to 2013, the White House stated: "this will provide depository institutions with a more stable source of funding and enhanced ability to continue making credit available across the country." However, there is no proven connection between higher FDIC insurance limits and increased lending by insured banks.

Look back at what happened after the 1980 change. S&L's that were struggling to obtain funding to cover their liabilities spotted the opportunity to obtain that funding by attracting insured deposits. They offered high interest rates and employed brokers to canvass potential depositors. A few managed to solve their problems by doing this, but a great many more did not and imposed larger losses on the FDIC as a result. A similar pattern has been evident over the last year, as troubled banks have bid up interest rates to attract sufficient deposits to meet their pressing cash flow needs.

The people supplying this "hot" money that seeks out the highest short-term rates offered by weak banks are sophisticated investors who spread large sums among many FDIC-insured banks. By raising the maximum insurance limits from $100,000 to $250,000, Congress has more than doubled the amount they can deposit in the weakest FDIC-insured banks offering the highest interest rates.

What's more, as a result of the increase in insurable limits to $250,000, regulators have lost the help of a savvy group of private monitors. When insured deposits were limited to $100,000 per account, corporations and wealthy individuals would look closely at the financial condition of a bank before making deposits over that limit. In turn, the executives of the bank would bolster its financial condition to attract monies from such sophisticated depositors.

With a $250,000 limit, however, many of those investors can keep most of their cash in insured deposits. In that case, they no longer have any incentive to scrutinize the financial condition of the bank; if it fails, they will be fully protected by the FDIC. In short, the new $250,000 limit will erode much of the private sector monitoring that could help federal regulators constrain excessive risk-taking by insured banks.

Unless we bring back the lower insurance limits for deposits, the FDIC's rescue of failed banks could become very expensive. Taxpayers paid over $100 billion to resolve the S&L crisis, and Congress recently authorized the Treasury to lend the FDIC up to $500 billion.

Do you think that the limit on deposit insurance should go back again to $100,000?

Bob Pozen is a senior lecturer at Harvard Business School and the author of Too Big to Save? How to Fix the US Financial System (John Wiley, to be published on November 9, 2009)