The other day Crain’s “Book of Lists,” a magazine devoted to listing the top firms and executives in various New York industries, crossed my desk. Flipping through, I could count the number of women included in the entire publication on two hands — literally.
Particularly stark was the “Fortunate 100,” the top compensated CEOs in the city, including just four women with the first coming in at number 26. The top 180 privately held companies included 12 female CEOs, and while the publicly held companies didn’t list their executives, the only one I could easily identify was Indra Nooyi at Pepsico. Interestingly, Nooyi is head of the 11th largest publicly held company, but ranked number 37 on the compensation list, behind a number of men who run smaller operations.
Later that same day I opened up my latest New Yorker to find a letter by philosophy professor Kascha Semonovitch on the lack of female faces in their recent “Photographs of Power” feature, just four in a group of fifty world leaders. Out of curiosity, I checked out a few of the other “big lists,” and found that only 15 companies on the Fortune 500 have female CEOs. The Forbes 400 wealthiest Americans includes 42 women, at least half of whom inherited their wealth, and their “Most Powerful People” list includes four women out of 67. (Although, there is small consolation in seeing Hilary Clinton come in at number 17 while Bill is at number 31).
Perhaps most galling is the Vanity Fair “New Establishment” list, which includes 12 women out of 100 total. I can’t fault Forbes or Fortune or Crain’s – presumably their data is compiled using formulas — but the VF list is entirely subjective. It includes men who are major business powerhouses, but women who are mostly actresses, media professionals and a couple of White House staffers, some of whom are listed with male partners or cohorts.
Seeing all these lists together was demoralizing. It reminded me that, despite the recent media blitz about women being over 50% of workers in the US, and the new “diverse, digital and female” workforce, we are still far behind our male counterparts in terms of participation and representation at the top. And that means that a host of other issues — equal pay, sound family policies, amenities that would improve the lives of families like on-site daycare and lactation facilities, are not on the table. Women may be 50% of workers, but their needs as employees are woefully underserved, largely because they simply don’t hold positions of power either in business or in politics.
I would be more optimistic about seeing the women in today’s cohort of young managers rise to the top if I didn’t see them scaling back so radically. While I don’t think large numbers are opting out of work per se, many of the best are opting out of the corporate world. I hear life coaches and career coaches and editorialists counsel “down-timing” all the time as a way to make women’s lives happier, more fulfilled, less stressful. But this strategy takes women out of the running for exactly the jobs that would give them power and autonomy.
During the 2000s I noticed that women continuously needed to tell each other that “we can’t do it all, and that’s okay.” Of course, no one can do everything well; there is such a thing as being overcommitted. But with support from our partners, we can do an awful lot — including have wonderful family lives in tandem with high-powered careers. The more we reassure ourselves and our junior colleagues that we don’t have to work so hard, the less competitive we become and the more likely we are to get stuck in boring and unpleasant middle management jobs.
If we can successfully move into executive suites, women will have leverage to advocate for the kinds of reform that can promote our own advancement — public policy that support families, business policies that understand the link between productivity and employee well-being, and mentoring for each other. But we have to remind ourselves that work and family are not mutually exclusive, and that we can excel at both.
Related links:
- The Economist‘s recent piece on women in the workforce is a worthy read, discussing the issues in both a national and an international context.
- I’ve been enjoying the blog Hello Ladies, which reports on the intersection between feminism and life. It’s part of a new generation of sites for women that aren’t afraid to openly use the f-word (that’s feminist!).
- Catalyst is working to expand opportunities for women in business, and has been a great advocate for getting more women into executive roles and boardrooms.
- The Sloan Work and Family Research Network is a terrific resource for information on women, work and family. Can’t check their site all the time? Follow their Twitter feed here — they are great at keeping you posted on the latest news related to work.
Great, great post. Can I make this required reading for all summer and first-year associates at my firm?
I just finished reading “Too Big to Fail.” Of the hundreds of bankers and government officers mentioned in the book, I counted only a handful of women – and the one who got the most ink (Erin Callan) was portrayed as an affirmative-action promotion who ended up contributing to her firm’s downfall because she was in over her head. It was very depressing.
As a group, we need to work harder, work smarter, and stay on track if we want to effect change.
Once again, Mama Bee, you rocked it! One of the most damaging and lasting remnants of the “Opting Out,” “Off Ramps and On Ramps” craze is that a whole generation of young women misinterpreted what was meant to be a debate was actually a strategy or “how to.” I can’t keep track of the number of women who have approached me over the years and said, “Oh, great you can help me with my opting out strategy.” WHAT!? Why is a young, often unmarried, high-achieving woman leading with that goal?
That’s not to say that choosing to “down-shift” or take time off isn’t a valid decision for some (isn’t it sad that you still have to insert that qualifier to be understood), BUT it is not by far the only decision or option. As I wrote in my post from Oct, 09 “I’m a (blank) and I sometimes put my career before my family,” I know plenty of successful mothers and wives who are very senior positions in all sorts of industries. Do they have “balance?” No, but they have found a work+life “fit” that works for their unique professional and personal reality. And in many cases it includes periods where there is a lot of work, but other days when other things can take priority. The point is not to do what they are doing but to look at HOW they are doing it (without any “bad mommy” judgment), learn from it, and celebrate their achievements.
It all comes down to the chicken or the egg conundrum…do we wait for employers to become flexible, offer child care/elder care supports, etc. and then go for it. Or do we use our power to stay in the game and advance change for everyone–bringing men along as partners–within the system? I think you know what my answer is. What is the worst thing that can happen? It doesn’t work for you, and you downshift or leave anyway. But too many women are walking away without trying. My experience has been when you try you’ll be surprised that you can actually make your work+life fit work, albeit not perfectly, but it will work.
Way to go, TMB! Let’s keep discussing.
Great post and thoughtful comments. I too always find the VF list the most depressing. This is about access to and wielding power. The question is, do most women really want it?
I am not buying that the only path to the corner office is to do it the traditional male way. Companies who treat all employees as one type of person with one type of expectation are foolish, shortsighted and attract the kind of employees they deserve.
Mothers are different from fathers and parents/caregivers are different from unattached workers and an intelligent workforce understands and offers strategies that grow with life changes. If they don’t, then the talent drain gets large enough and smart companies will (and are) shifting their models in fundamental ways. Or misguidedly, they won’t.
In which case, what’s wrong with an economy of home-based entrepreneurs calling their own shots and running their own shows? It’s a different kind of power. But it’s still power.
I want to see more women at the top too. But if a woman knows she wants kids and knows she wants to stay home with them for a season, then she’s right and smart to have an off-ramp strategy. And an on-ramp one right along side it if that’s needed and/or appealing.
I agree family and high-powered careers are not mutually exclusive. But you have to acknowledge there are huge trade-offs, particularly as you have more children. The career I could maintain with one child was vastly different to the one I could manage with four. It’s all about choices. Until companies have the vision, I’ll stick with my work from home strategy. And fight the fight from the sidelines I guess.
Hi Chrysula,
Great points! I would argue that you are not on the sidelines at all. In fact, you’ve chosen to devote 100% of the work you are doing (with 4 children by the way) to giving companies the vision and making change happen. You saw the work+life fit that worked for your unique realities and put the wheels in motion to make it happen. You are trying and succeeding as you define it. And inspiring others in the process. To your point about off ramp and on ramp strategies, the problem I see is that too often the off ramp is NOT accompanied by an on ramp plan upfront. Months, years go by and then it all seems just too overwhelming. And that goes for those who take a break to provide elder care as well. The myth was that an employer would give you an on ramp (and yes a small number of forward thinking employers have, at least before the downturn) but the truth is you need to create your own in most cases. Thinking about what it might look like beforehand helps.
Cali, Chrysula, Ella — thank you all so much — great responses. Chrysula, I have to agree with Cali, you are not on the sidelines at all. And there is absolutely a role to play for entrepreneurs and others who decide the traditional corporate environment doesn’t meet their needs. I’m all for that. In fact it may grow us some better businesses and policy-makers over time.
My issue is that in the short-run we’re looking at a sea of men controlling our corporate fates. As a group, they haven’t shown themselves to be singificantly better managers, and we are at their mercy in terms of work/family policies, both company-based and government. At the same time, we seem to be telling ourselves that it’s better to leave the corporate world than try and change it from within. (Which is not — as Cali and you both point out — to say that they aren’t some very good reasons for leaving sometimes, most notably if you are very unhappy for whatever reason.)
But if we all leave, we cede the points to the people who stay behind, and so far this group hasn’t been particularly supportive of women’s advancement or alternative work policies that might better meet the needs of all employees. We are losing by removing ourselves from the fight.
Meanwhile, my life — personal and professional — has been so enhanced this year by being a part of a community where we can have these important conversations. Without different perspectives we get nowhere. You guys are the best. Happy New Year!
TMB
Mama Bee, you continue to inspire with your intelligent prose. Thank you and Cali both for your vote of confidence. We all just have to keep this ball rolling from the place we are in.
I do think though, the reason a lot of women just don’t try, is they are not finding the corporate life fulfilling enough to begin with. And that’s a whole other kind of chicken and egg. They won’t play the game because they simply don’t see much they enjoy to make it worth the battle.
That takes us back to how women and men are trained to think. I for one have a bone to pick with business schools and will be focusing some energy there in the near future.
A couple of years ago I ran across this article in the New York Times Magazine: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/20/national/20women.html?_r=1 It talks about the increasing number of highly educated women who are choosing to work part time or to be stay at home moms vs high-powered full time work. These feminist moms argue that the feminist movement offered women the opportunity to be stay at home moms, overturning the unwritten (and negative) historic mandate. I find this argument compelling for sure. The Feminine Mystique is no longer a necessary evil. We aren’t resigned to our homes and our Revolutionary Road lives. We are free to choose. (If it’s financially viable, of course.) I’m an ivy leaguer. I work in the field of education. Part time, so I can care for my own children part time as well. Your post is very well-written and very inspiring – so inspiring in fact, that it makes me feel a bit like I’m doing something wrong by not pulling myself up by my feminist boot straps and landing myself a job of greater import (read: higher pay). I’m not sure what that means, but I felt it was comment worthy.
I would have missed this fabulous discussion if Chrysula hadn’t pointed it out to me. (Time to subscribe to the RSS feed, rather than hoping I see an update in a Tweet and then missing it because I’m offline!)
I think the whole work system needs to change to be able to accommodate and indeed benefit from the rich diversity our now complex, dynamic, self-aware society. However we do that, and whatever role we play – in or outside of the corporation – it’s just so refreshing to hear that there’s a little army out there determined to make a difference!
Hi, Mama Bee!
Thanks so much for including the Sloan Network; it’s an honor to be included and to be in such great company!
Pingback: But Women Just Don’t Want to Work… « The Mama Bee
Pingback: Lost heart with your current job? Don’t rush to escape