I recently read an article about this year’s list of Barclay’s Women in Leadership Total Return Index and wondered why do we still need to honor this? Is it because it is still a rarity to find women who lead major banks and companies? Or is it that we support the separatism by isolating the women and highlighting them as the oddity they are?
My nephew, Tim Gilbert, recently wrote an article as the editor of the OnState newspaper (Penn State rag) on the naming of the new Athletic Director, a woman, named Sandy Barbour. I applauded him for the excellent article, but posted a response that I would hope it would happen someday soon that a woman named to any position would not have the by-line of “the first”.
And that brings up the big issue of the next presidential election: will women vote for Hillary because she is a woman or because she is the best suited for the job?
That remains to be seen, but nevertheless, it is wonderful to see so many women entering the fray and expecting to be considered on an equal footing with men for the same position, same opportunity, same compensation.
The bigger questions is, will they have to change who they are to be at the summit?
I know that women are fearful and disinterested in personal financial matters. This cultural bias may be dissipating but will it ever be considered feminine to know about money? As a prerequisite to adulthood? I hope so, but in the meantime, we are still listing Top Women in any field. Can’t we just name the Top People?
Comments are closed.
I believe that identifying the leader as a woman is being distinctive. It might demonstrate leadership by an organization, board of directors, etc. And we want leaders who bring unique skills to the organization. In the world today, women may have more of the skills needed to be the leaders we want out in front.