If you're needing a bit of business inspiration, look no further than Fortune Magazine's 50 Most Powerful Women list, which came out a few days ago. Fifty fabulous women who are strong, powerful, and -- oh yeah -- rich.
It starts with Pepsi CEO Indra Nooyi (who's now topped the list three years in a row), and concludes with their youngest inductee ever: 33-year-old Marissa Mayer, a VP at Google. One needn't look any further for examples of business success than this varied list of women.
Of course, defining power is a tricky thing. A month ago Forbes conducted a little survey:
Who are the three most powerful women in the world? Obviously it depends on who you ask. In Forbes' ranking of the World's 100 Most Powerful Women, we take a rigorous methodological approach that measures public profile and financial heft. But "power" can be defined in many different ways. What would happen if we asked a group of successful women whom they would pick?
The answers they gathered are very varied, and include some women who didn't (and never will) make Fortune's list, because they simply don't have the stocks and dollars to go along with their power. Do you know who both made the Fortune list and came up a bunch in the "who would you pick" survey, though? Oprah. Of course.
SARAHSPY's cheeky assessment was accompanied by a picture of Oprah surrounded by fans, wherein "Are U Santa?" was written over the image (heh) and her commentary concluded this way:
From THE OPRAH we can learn that Power = Generosity. You've got to GIVE to get the POWER.
THE OPRAH's teachings indicate that power won't come to you just 'cause you're cute or hip or kinda smart. And sometimes you won't even like the people you're gifting; sometimes these people will be super annoying & it will pain you to be so kind. But remember: People only flock to those who gift expensive presents. And that's one really good & proven path to POWER.
This was not the salient criterion for the Fortune list, however. No, Fortune's guidelines are more distinct:
We rank corporate women in for-profit businesses only, and rankings are based on four criteria: the size and importance of the business in the global economy, the health and direction of the business, the arc of her career, and her social and cultural relevance.
This rules out women who work in/for non-profits, or who are powerful due to social and cultural relevance but aren't heading up a corporation. And they're Fortune, after all, so that makes sense, but it does rule out most of the women mentioned in the Forbes survey because they're not corporation-types. Which is kind of a shame.
Lemondrop cautions that this list is hardly cause for celebration, though:
But powerful women still lag behind their male counterparts. Sharilyn Gasaway, CFO of Alltell, was the list's top earner; she brought home $38.6 million last year. In 2007, Steve Schwarzman, CEO of Blackstone, topped Forbes' list of most powerful men in business, with earnings of $350.7 million. And even the 25th-ranked guy on the list earned millions more than the top female earner.
So even though these women are definitely making way more than we'll ever see in our lifetimes, they still aren't measuring up to their male counterparts.
And in a time where the economy is on shaky ground while women are in the spotlight, WSJ's Heidi N. Moore wonder if perhaps the most telling aspect of the Fortune list is the women who are no longer on it. So are Women on Wall Street a Shrinking Club or Not?:
In the past year, the three highest ranking women on Wall Street have left their jobs: Zoe Cruz, co-president of Morgan Stanley, Erin Callan, chief financial officer of Lehman Brothers Holdings, and Sallie Krawcheck, the head of wealth management for Citigroup.
The moves intersect with renewed concerns about whether female progress has stalled even as two prominent women have sought the high public offices: Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin.
It's all good food for thought. And here I'd just been pleased to note the ages of the majority of the women on the list; in a culture that wants us to believe women over 29 are all washed up, I found it refreshing that the average age here was over 50. That means I have plenty of time left to go be amazing, right?
BlogHer Contributing Editor Mir also blogs about issues parental and otherwise at Woulda Coulda Shoulda, and about the joys of mindful retail therapy at Want Not.
Comments
Statistics show women are losing ground and
Politics prove it!
Your assessment of Fortune's list is quite correct. The statistics prove the same:
From Condé Naste, to NAFE (National Association of Female Executives), to Pink Magazine, all eyes and journalistic talents are focused on the Catalyst’s latest report. The news is not good, not good at all! The numbers are bringing tears to the eyes of those who thought gender bias was a thing of the past. Women have lost ground with corporate positions, actually dropping to 15.4% in 2007 as compared to 16.4% in 2005. This result is based on Fortune 500 companies. We can’t even begin to figure the statistics in non-Fortune 500 companies in corporate America. From salary levels to the boardroom, women hold less and less positions of influence while men have filled more CEO vacancies and those numbers are rising.
In December 2007 NAFE held a conference where a group of executive women from the NAFE Top 30 Companies for Executive Women debated the issues. The NAFE Roundtable spent time discussing the how and why and the future pathway to improve this situation. There was one subject that was not yet on the table. In December 2007 “Hillary” still appeared to be the woman on the road to the White House. Here in October 2008, we see things quite differently.
What most have failed to realize is that our only, best and most recent hope for the first female CEO of the USA was in that position purely based on her male counterpart’s rise in Democrat politics. If Bill Clinton was not President, would Hillary Clinton still be a household name? Not likely.
Now you ask “What does this all mean?”
It appears that in corporate America, a woman’s rise to the top is more likely, although difficult, than a woman’s rise to the top in the political arena. Outside of those NAFE Top 30 Companies, corporate issues on Main Street, in small and mid-size companies are similar to those of the average American today. In that vein, a successful woman politician faces the same pre-conceived gender issues that women face from the board room to the management team and most of all in obtaining CEO approval or positioning.
Women in politics must be more intelligent than a male politician, yet be ready to play “The Good Old Boys Game” better than their male counterpart. Well, you say, we are making progress on the diversity issue, after all Hillary lost the nomination to a black politician, doesn’t that count?
In most worlds a one term female senator would never get the kind of support achieved by this black man. Remember his background. He is still working through “The Good Old Boys” political machine of Daly, Chicago. He is also heavily supported by the oldest, most typical male political arm of the Democrat Party. So some things haven’t changed.
Now tell me which of the Fortune 500 would hire a CEO with 3 years experience in executive management of any sort? I say no-one would even consider the resume, yet the Democrat Party decided to look for a CEO with only 3 years executive level experience. All in order to avoid having Hillary as their candidate. This seems odd.
What woman comes to the political table after Hillary?
Names are not plentiful these days. If only we had an American Margaret Thatcher or a female mix of Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy. If you spot her, let us know. Maybe NAFE and Pink Magazine can devise a national campaign that will make her a household name, put fear in the hearts and minds of terrorists worldwide and give us a pathway to better economic strategies. After all, we all know women are better at balancing the homeland budget than men!
Take this one step further and you watch all the criticism of the VP Candidate, a woman govenor with as much, if not more executive experience than the male Presidential Candidate of the opposing party. Does anyone see a double standard? Is there any woman who doesn't agree that a double standard takes place. Just look at your comment: CEO female : $38million, CEO male: $350 million. Such food for thought! Diane Dutton, CPA & Author of "A Woman's Ladder To Success"