The cover story in Wednesday's USAToday(April 23) discusses women as business founders. The article discusses how many women are founders of businesses, yet when it comes to becoming a really big company they are at a distinct disadvantage numbers wise. The article states that in the last 35 years only 43 women have become CEO's of Fortune 1000 companies, and in that same time only three companies were founded by women and then grew into Fortune 1000 companies, they also happened to be co-founded by men. Why? Why so few??
The basic reasoning in the article, and this is from women involved in businesses, is the same reason that we see for women not getting promoted in other companies, motherhood.
While we like to think that this is a reason that men give for not promoting women, here is a reason that the women themselves give for not staying in the leadership role of a company that they started, in a sense their baby also.
How does this trend affect women as a whole entering the workforce today? Do you see this as a plausable excuse or reason for the lack of women at the head of their own companies once they have reached the pinnacle of financial success. Do you think that maybe they are intimidated once their company becomes ultra-successful? What kinds of strategies, if any, are there for having more women stay with their companies when they are successful and large, could they cultivate another female for their role when they feel a need to step down?
I thought this article was very interesting as most of us are about to enter the workforce, it is another view into the atmosphere in which we will be imersed.
You can read the article by clicking the link above, or the papaer is also available in the racks on campus.
1 comment:
This article further illuminates an unbalanced corporate world when it comes to gender. With these sorts of articles coming out, however, you can see that this is quickly becoming buzz-worthy and I predict that once this idea is out there and getting press (which it is) that women will stand up and say "Hey, I can run this business all the way to the top by myself."
If you think about gender stereotypes and their trickle down effect from generation to generation, I believe our generation is one that is inheriting some of the more radical ideas from the second wave feminists. But those ideas seemed somewhat radical at that time, now they are almost plausible. These changes include a more acceptable image of women as independent. But, there appears to be a polarity which will eventually capsize and yield more women entrepreneurs.
All the lights are green, but the machine's not quite ready to race. The professional framework surrounding women's roles has to be adapted to fit this new view of women. This means that a woman should be able to take a year off to have a kid and be less involved in the everyday stuff and just be consulted about major decisions; after all she IS the C.E.O., hypothetically. Perhaps her co-workers would feel they lost power without her around, perhaps she would be regarded as not as "focused" but a similar argument could be made for any male C.E.O who tries to do something in his free time...
"oh you're out golfing?! that's not very focused of you! You got a dog?! Don't let this mutt drag down your career!" Obviously this is an exaggeration but you can see how those "you're not focused" arguments are paper thin.
Post a Comment