Importance of Women in Leadership Positions

I'm at one of my favorite Starbucks again, here for the wi-fi connection more than anything else. The table I initially shared was with three other women, the others in their 20s. They appeared to be studying for an exam or writing a mid-term paper. They confirmed the impression.

After a time, I shared some thoughts with them (as I'm doing with you now) -- about the three presidential election candidates. There's one woman who's white, over 45, and seasoned with regard to life in the White House; the next is a man, full of his newness to office but black, well educated, and enthusiastic; and finally that white man from Arizona who will take us back to 20 years ago he he follows policy lines and pushes us back to Life With the Regans. But the choices are diversity -- at its finest. It isn't a matter of choosing which type of diversity as much as it's about choosing the person with the right leadership skills and hold theirself out as an example to other nations to see as the formidable entity it once was.

One of the young women became combative and defensive of the presidential situation. She argued that seeing race and gender and conservatism is a superficial way of looking at diversity. She continued her argument that diversity also includes differences of thought, experiences, etc. And she became even more adamant. There is no real shortage of women in the Board room nor in C-level positions and she could prove that by going to a particular research site.

I pointed out that the latter characteristics are the very ones I discussed in my webinar last year. But the fact still remains that even though we've reached 9% (and dropped to 8%) on Boards of Directors of Fortune 500 corporations, the number of women in responsible roles in corporations is still too low, especially in light of how many women are in the workforce.

My new-found friend began to pant and huff as she contradicted those words. She pointed out that women hold all of the offices in media. However, according to ( "Access, employment, decision-making," obstacles to success in journalism include good old boy club, women's reproductive roles, lack of mentoring, and pay disparity), advertising, marketing, and journalism is 99% saturated by women. According to Crystal Roberts' " Women in Journalism" (2004) ". . . in journalism particularly, where the journalists come face to face with the public and are expected to have a fair and accurate view of the world, an extreme gender bias exists." It is noted that "despite the significant increase in the number of women in journalism, the news continues to be male-dominated." In fact, "it is found that in order for women to make a positive difference in journalism, they must be in positions of power." These are the same issues that were cited in last year's webinar and in the data from the European Professional Women Network with regard to women's being able to move forward.

In addition to journalism coming to a standstill, the numbers of women in IT is now sliding -- downward.

Well, I observed aloud that she felt strongly about the topic and that it sounded as those industries should be added to the "pink collar" professions. With that, she excused herself from the self-induced debate and returned to studying.

But that conversation keeps playing through my mind. I don't believe any of the industries she referenced are predominantly female and definitely do not see journalism as 99% female. According to writer Crystal Roberts, women journalists number approximately one-third of those in the industry and that number seems to be at a sticking point.

What are the accurate numbers? I had the impression that marketing and media were male dominated industries. Given what I've found in regard to backing up the speaker's assertions about journalism and media, I felt it wasn't necessary to check the numbers for the other professions and that my impressions (based on old research) are still correct. Her postulations were flawed.

Is she correct that it makes no difference if women are on boards of directors or hold C-level positions? That would mean they sit somewhere in the background and have someone else as their mouthpiece as they spout their campaign rhetoric. Sitting in the backseat, always taking a backseat to a man, isn't the healthiest position to be in. it takes a lot of effort to be heard. It takes even more to be seen from the backseat. And effectiveness in that position depends on politics.

Which brings us full circle to the original thoughts about the Presidential campaign. Hillary is definitely not sitting in anyone's backseat and allowing them to be her mouthpiece. And we're still faced with a choice among -- a white American woman, over 55; a multi-racial man with immediate ties to Africa, and a white man with ultra-conservative ideals that will put us right back into the Bush Administration and the last 12 years of Republican Rule. Oh well! The choice comes down to who is the most capable of being an effective leader and neither gender nor race influence the quality of leadership and good decision making.