News Alert: Women are capable of Leading Companies ... now back to work
by Jory Des Jardins

 
I wasn't disheartened to see that Indra K. Nooyi will be succeeding Steven S. Reinemund as the Chief Executive Officer of PepsiCo, but I wasn't very excited about it either. What kind of women's advocate am I? 

I don't doubt Nooyi's capability of being a chief executive. As reported in The New York Times, Nooyi has been instrumental to her company's current success. Not only is she one of only ten women heading up a top corporation, she's an Indian woman, who received her undergrad and MBA in her native country. She wasn't born with a briefcase in her hand or with any pedigree that you'd expect a CEO to have. I'm inclined to believe that her intelligence and ability to execute landed her the job. But we already knew that women were capable of leading, right? This isn't news. 

I don't feel excited that a woman has broken through the ranks of a predominantly male paradigm because, quite honestly, I don't respect the paradigm. I respect the intelligence and talent it takes to survive in the paradigm, but not the paradigm itself.

 In her outstanding blog on women's growing (and stifled) prominence in corporate America, Laurel Delaney, of Escape from Corporate America Blog, points to an insightful editorial by Wall Street Journal Online writer Judith Dobrzynski (and reprinted by GayPASG.org) on women's still-abysmal place in the corporate world.  Dobrzynski notes the usual, depressing numbers:  

According to Catalyst, the women's research and advisory group that just issued its 10th census of women in Fortune 500 companies, women held 10.6% of line-officer positions in 2005.  Many now run big divisions; for years, women have earned more than a third of the MBAs granted each year ...
 

Sure 10 female CEOs is better than three, which was the all-time high before the year 2000, but does this milestone constitute the corporate world's embrace of women in top spots? Yes, yes, things take time; I can't get pissy about a step in the right direction. But is this the right direction?

 Note that Dobrzynski noted the increase in LINE officer positions. This little word "Line" means a lot in the business world. Corporate types often distinguish employees this way to determine their value to a company. And while human resources is an important function in a company, for all intents and purposes it's a cost center and typically not perceived as highly as revenue-driving ones. Line positions, on the other hand, are tied to bottom-line results. And if you are fully responsible for bringing in revenue (i.e. in a sales or business development capacity), then you really matter. Revenue-generating functions and line functions are typically the areas where CEO successors are scouted and areas that have historically been male-dominated. HR, marketing, and communications--which have historically attracted more women--are not typical CEO pools.  

As a woman whose career has been androgynous in those terms (I've been a cost center and a revenue generator) I've consciously made a choice to not be pegged as cost-center only. I may make widgets, but I sell em too. But is this what I would recommend to all women who seek C-level visbility? To go against their natural inclinations so that their company will take them more seriously? Or would I prefer that companies see the human resource, or "people" side of managing a business as important as its revenue side?  The answer is obvious to me: people are more valuable. This is no chicken-egg issue--great people lead to great ideas/production/revenue generation, not the other way around. 

Dobrzynski cites another reason for the low percentages of women leaders in major corporations: 

I believe it's all about risk: Male directors are simply afraid to take an unnecessary risk by selecting a woman.  It's analogous to, years ago, the decision to purchase a mainframe computer:  Word was that you would never have to justify your choice if you bought an IBM, even if something went wrong; you might if you purchased one from the so-called BUNCH (Burroughs, Univac, NCR, Control Data, Honeywell).  That's how IBM came to have a near-monopoly.   It's true, of course, that many men make it to the No. 2 spot and fail to go higher. But their failures are generally not as public -- they lose to another man, and they are not viewed as indicative of the deficiencies of an entire gender, as women's failures are.
 I shared my opinion of the significance of women in corporate leadership positions back in 2005, when Carly Fiorina's departure from HP was interpreted to be a sure sign of women's incompetence in business. The skeptic in me wants to say that Nooyi is being set up as the next scapegoat in proving women's inability to lead. But that's too facile a position; Nooyi will be PepsiCo's fifth chief executive in its 41 years in operation--clearly they don't take executive appointments lightly. Nooyi is also taking the reins during a calm and profitable period for the company, proving to me that there's no back-end conspiracy to throw a woman into the maelstrom in time to pin any declines on her.I have great faith in Nooyi's ability to push the bar for women, but I doubt she'll be able to move it very far.

 At the BlogHer conference closing session, a man asked of the closing keynote panel, "So what can men do to help?" A nice sentiment, indeed. Mena Trott replied, "Stop making lists," referring to an arguably male, hierarchical penchant of the blogosphere's to gauge success by one's traffic or Technorati ranking, versus by a blog's relevance to a specific community. Not surprisingly, Trott is an entrepreneur. In one's own entrepreneurial world, there are plenty of bars to push, but they are personal ones, and percentages of others like you in the world make very little difference. Being unique is the key. 

Dobrzynski ends her editorial citing Catalyst numbers on the growth rate for the advancement of women in corporate America.   

Women now hold just 9.4% of the "clout" titles -- those higher than vice president.  At the current rate of "progress," Catalyst concluded that it will take another 40 years for women to achieve parity with men in the officer-level ranks -- even officers that have staff positions.
 

Do we want to hold our breath for that?

Editor's note: Want to read another perspective on Indra Nooyi's new job? Check out Karen Walrond's post, "PepsiCo names Indra Nooyi its first female CEO -- and gives me hope for the corporate world at large"

Jory Des Jardins also blogs at Pause.

Submitted by Jory Des Jardins (view blog) on Tue, 08/15/2006 - 12:25pm

Comments

 

Crossing the line/staff divide

Hi Jory,
I'm a corporate survivor as well, and I think all of the points that you make here are well taken. One thing that I note with chagrin about the way corporate life has changed in the last two decades is that managers are no longer rewarded for developing their people. It goals along with the mentality that has people planning by the quarter, instead for long-term growth. In this postmodern global economy, it's about time that we recognized that the staff-line division is obsolete. From the factory floor to the sales floor, you need people who function in self-managed teams. If that doesn't make HR a strategic investment, I don't know what does. Similarly, smart PR is critical to building relationships with customers, suppliers, employees, investors, external stakeholders -- and without those relationships, how can you sustain a competitive product development cycle? You could go down the line through most "cost center" functions and demonstrate their impact on production, sales and net revenues. This isn't the assembly-line era any more. Corporate honchos who haven't figured out that we need a different paradigm need to get a clue.

Professor Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor, Law and Journalism/Media

Submitted by Kim Pearson on Tue, 08/15/2006 - 14:04
 

Kim - perhaps there is hope

Kim - perhaps there is hope in a new "model" that is being created over at Best Buy by Julie Gilbert (check out my interview with her on www.InWomenWeTrust.com) She started an HR networking function to help women mentor each other and improve each other's career at Best Buy. What is happening is that these groups are breaking down the hierarchy. When the women get together, the titles tend to disappear.

What is also happening is that the ideas coming out of the Women's Leadership Forums are changing the face of the Geek Squad and changing the way that stores function, etc. Just in time, too. According to Julie, the majority of electronic purchases are now made by women. She has "Best Buy-IN" from the top because these groups are coming up with the ideas that will best serve their customer base.

If my email is any indication, there are a lot of women who would like to work in corporate under those conditions. I would love to hear your opinion if you think this model will have legs. It's not replacing the current structure, just giving the current structure a different soul, per se.

Submitted by Mary Clare Hunt on Tue, 08/22/2006 - 06:49
 

It's in the headlines

As I scan the headlines in my News folder in my feed reader, they say it all: "PepsiCo hires woman CEO" or "Woman to be chief at PepsiCo."

Not:

"Indra K. Nooyi named new PepsiCo chief"
or
"PepsiCo promotes current President/COO to CEO position"

She is a nameless, faceless, accomplishment-less "Woman."

Do you think the same thing would happen to men who were also a member of a minority group? Reminds me of the Identity & Obligation panel...where do we draw the line at what's worthy of calling out?

Food for thought: which of these headlines have really happened, or do you think would really happen when referring to a Fortune 500 company?

"African American man named CEO of xxx"
"Hispanic man named CEO of xxx"
"Indian man named CEO of xxx"
"Gay man named CEO of xxx"
"Jewish man named CEO of xxx"
"Muslim man named CEO of xxx"

Any of them? None of them?

And to play devil's advocate to myself: I'm always saying that we need to make a big deal of our identities, so that stereotypes can be broken down one accomplished person at a time. So, then, why should I complain that the media is trumpeting that a woman has accomplished this milestone...getting the Fortune 500 CEO ratio past the 2% woman mark!?

I'm torn...I see Karen's point and Jory's point!

Elisa Camahort
BlogHer and Worker Bees
elisa@blogher.org/elisa@workerbees.biz

Submitted by Elisa Camahort on Tue, 08/15/2006 - 16:03
 

a *woman* CEO

Maybe it is still news and does need to be noted, but personally, I'm sick of it being news that a *woman* got a promotion to a powerful position. Women totally rock and work their asses off just like men do, so why is this still news?

I know we're not there yet - trust me, I work in entertainment, we're not there yet - but I can't help feeling smacked everytime gender is discussed as relevant to advancement when it's actually irrelevant (to me anyway). I just can't believe people are still discussing things like whether women make good film & television directors, CEOs, etc. Would you vote for a woman for president? Seriously, why are we even asking this question?

Man, for the day when we can JUST MOVE ON from the antiquity.

Liz Rizzo

Everyday Goddess

SexySmart Blog

Submitted by Liz Rizzo on Tue, 08/15/2006 - 16:20
 

Standing with Rizzo

Normally, I just read, ponder and move along without a comment. However, I think Liz is making a point that I have long thought. More would come of promotions such as these if it the press releases simply read, "Woman "A" received a promotion to CEO." To me, it's better than, "The first woman at ABC Corp as been named CEO." Why is this still a historic event? I agree with Liz that I think it holds things back.

When a promotion opportunity comes available, the decision makers think in terms of the best woman instead of the best person because they're trying to make a statement. That may seem why some female CEOs are being setup to fail. It's that they are trying to pick a woman instead of a person. As stated earlier, I don't think this is the case with Pepsico.

Little things like this would go a long way in reducing tension between colleagues. As long as we make a big deal out of it, the 'defunct paradigm' will still fester.

Connexxions

Submitted by connexxions on Tue, 08/29/2006 - 12:35
 

CEO Wanted; A Right Brained Women with an MBA

You all have highlighted great points....11 CEOs out of 500 isn't very many.

I would like to add the following personal observation in regards to is this a get back to work/too small a step or a reason to be hopeful. I think it is both.

When Jory writes," I don't feel excited that a woman has broken through the ranks of a predominantly male paradigm because, quite honestly, I don't respect the paradigm. I respect the intelligence and talent it takes to survive in the paradigm, but not the paradigm itself"...I have to agree. The paradigm of corporations for women and minorities is nothing to be respected.

Should we be hopeful? Well, if we can't respect the paradigm, but can respect the woman, then I guess this is a sign of some hope.

I would like to add a personal observation, not meant to be statistically signficant...

When I got an MBA from Washington University in St. Louis in the late 70s there were 100 students in my first year class, 10 were women. According to Businessweek the number in 2005 was 21%. At Harvard, the MBA programs in the mid 70s had 11% women;34% of the 2005 Harvard MBA class were women.

According to CEOGO.com, more CEOs come from Harvard than any other school. About 50% of Fortune 500 CEOs have MBAs or CPA; 23% have engineering degrees. I am guessing that there were not very many women in engineering and CPA programs in the 70s.

The Fortune 500 CEOs are for the most part men and women in their 50s who went to graduate schools in the late 70s. So, not to argue that the number of women holding the title of CEO in Fortune 500 companies is anything but abysmal...it is abysmal; but one of the issues may be the number of women in graduate programs in the 70's, the current CEO classes if you will, was small.

Of the 10 women in my MBA class (and this is based upon some word of mouth) 2 women died shortly after graduation, 5 (including myself) worked for 10-15 years in corporations or financial institutions, and then left corporate life for family life; of those, 2 started their own businesses and 3 did not return to work. So, approximately 50% are still working, theoreticaly in the CEO pool. I don't know of any of my male classmates who left their careers or lessened their committment because of their families.

And the "family thing" is still one of the big elephants in the room. Even though CEOs such as Nooyi, Anne Mulcahy of Xerox, Christine Whitman of Ebay, Andrea Jung of Avon have children, anyone who can achieve what they have achieved IMHO is a superwoman and deserving of our respect and admiration. My own attempt to return to a fulltime career when my sons were 5 and 7, resulted in so much family chaos that for me, the tradeoff was not worth it.

Brenda Barnes at Sara Lee is the one execption that I am aware of, of someone who was able to return as a CEO after taking time off to spend with her children.

I read things like Dobrzynski writing about male directors who are afraid to take a risk with a woman and I just can't accept that as any more than a minor contribuiting factor to "where are the women CEOs."

Yes, corporate America is still a boys club. Yes, we are still described at women CEOs and women bloggers. And yes women are different than men and it is exceptionally difficult to balance the needed overdrive career-on-steriods necessary to achieve CEO status with the kind of mother on steroids we would like to give to our kids.

But, as I said, the increase in the number of women coming out of graduate programs will increase the number of women in corporations.

Additionally, as the Global economic structure shifts to what Businessweek quoting Dan Pink call the empathy economy, "the truth is we're moving from a knowledge economy that was dominated by technology into an experience economy controlled by consumers and the corporations who empathize with them"....then, women will move into the CEO slots at a greater speed.

If we believe that wome are more right brain than left brain and that the right brains are set to inherit the flat earth...well, then lots of women will soon be leading.

Marianne Richmond
resonancepartnership

Submitted by Marianne Richmond on Wed, 08/16/2006 - 01:22
 

You have great points, Marianne

I guess the question is, where are we on this trajectory, at the beginning, or smack dab in the middle of it with no sign of it growing? I would prefer more women CEOs who espouse an entrepreneurial spirit within their companies.

That too much to ask? ;)

Jory Des Jardins
BlogHer
Personal Blog Pause

Submitted by Jory Des Jardins on Wed, 08/16/2006 - 16:27
 

Where are we?

Jory,

I would hope we are at the "strategic point of inflection"....and once we reach critical mass, women will re-order and remix the status quo.

Unfortunately, the entrepreneurial spirit seems to be missing from the job description of the current Fortune 500 CEOs....again just drawing on personal observations, the corporate "survivors" are leading corporations right now and they were not the best and the brightess; "entrepreneurial spirit" was never a question on the performance evaluation and having "it" was not rewarded by promotion.

Too much to ask? Well, we don't have to be Albert Einstein to know that "We can't solve problems by using the same thinking that created them."

Where do you think we are?

A fear? Maybe the women who are moving into CEO positions right now have even less entrepreneurial spirit than the men...just to prove that they were "one of the guys."

Marianne Richmond
resonancepartnership

Submitted by Marianne Richmond on Thu, 08/17/2006 - 02:33
 

Women are not merely capable, they can change
the world ...

Hi, Jory ~

From your fellow sister blogger ... I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Keep up the outstanding work. You are a true blog pioneer, pushing at new frontiers of achievement and showing us that our voices count.

All the best,
Laurel
Creator, Escape From Corporate America blog

Submitted by ldelaney on Mon, 08/28/2006 - 10:45