Saturday, October 31, 2009
The Boston Club
The Boston Club, Massachusetts’ covey of women executives and directors, issued on October 30, 2009 their latest report on the state of women in leadership in The Bay State. If that didn’t scare the next generation of women back into the kitchen, nothing will.
As is typical of these reports, the 2009 study cites "a troubling trend" about "women losing ground" in their quest for a match made in heaven -– a corporate board or executive role at a Top 100 Firm in Massachusetts. The members-only nonprofit continues the 13-state harangue against companies whom they argue are the sole source of the angst in corporate America. According to The Boston Club, it is the fault of all those "pale, stale, ancient males" who continue their "zero-zero" strategy of excluding the most promising women from the executive suites and from the boardroom. They echo their sister organizations’ lament about the tragedy of the "static" and "flat" trends.
First, we should remind the researchers in Bean-Town that we have been in a horrific recession since the 3rd quarter of 2007. Most economic data describing the last two years' activity typically reported declines of 30 to 50 percent all the way to triple digits downward. So, if women on board data reveals merely a flat trend, then that would suggest that women in leadership at that level did not lose out, comparatively speaking.
But, the data holds many more treasures that the researchers have overlooked in their enthusiasm to strafe male-dominated corporations. Fact No. 1: since Boston began surveying the state’s Global 100 firms in 2001, 18 women were added to boards even though the number of male occupied seats declined by 12. Fact No. 2: The number of "zero" firms (those with no women directors) declined by 10. Fact No. 3: The number of firms with three women directors increased by 4 (from 5 firms to 9 firms). Fact No. 4: Four women are CEO/Chair of the companies where they serve as directors -– no small achievement. And, for those who wish to stay current, Fact No. 5: Massachusetts added 9 new women corporate directors to top corporations in the first 10 months of 2009, alone, according the press release announcements tracked by NewsOnWomen.com
The dot-com bust of 2000-2001 and the subsequent years of financial stupidity wreaked havoc on Boston’s Top 100 firms, suggesting the local economy has not exactly been risk-free. Turnover of firms on the Boston 100 (due to mergers, acquisitions, relocations, and revenue declines) has been high. Almost half of the firms (a total of 49) left the Boston 100 since 2003 alone. This makes comparisons very difficult.
From-To Firms Leaving
2003-2004 11
2004-2005 6
2005-2006 6
2006-2007 11
2007-2008 11
2008-2009 4
By 2009, The Boston 100 list included 37 new companies which were not on the list in 2003. Almost half of these new, young businesses (17 firms) had 1, 2 or 3 women directors for a total of 23 women in leadership. (Nineteen firms had no women directors.)
The biggest concern of these women-on-boards advocacy groups should not be at the board level, where women ARE holding their own. We should be much more concerned about the chilling, negative effect their reports have on the next generation of young, aspiring women "in the pipeline" who are trying to decide if they want to come up the executive ranks into leadership roles.
If I were a young woman in business school today who was repeatedly hit with this depressing, discouraging commentary from my "senior sisters," I would not be encouraged to stay on course for a leadership positions as I did back when I was in B-School. And back then, you could feel and taste bias and prejudice against women’s advancement -– today, those would be grounds for a lawsuit.
In 2001, when The Boston Club first began issuing their reports, they found 133 women executives among the total of 794 executives (or 17%) at the state’s top 100 firms. In 2009, they found 60 women executives out of a total of 679 (8.6%) or a decline of 73 women "in the pipeline" on track to leadership compared to a decline of 53 overall. This is the true "critical challenge" facing women.
In 2001, the survey of CEOs at the Boston Top 100 firms spoke of 3 critical imperatives for board qualification:
1. profit and loss experience
2. functional expertise
3. visibility to other CEOs.
The Boston report suggests that women are leaving corporations in large numbers to start new entrepreneurial businesses. In December 2009, the Small Business Administration will release their findings from the nation-wide survey of women-owned businesses which will provide us tremendous insight into this arena.
For example, are today’s young women retreating to viable businesses or are they swarming to uneconomic hobby/lifestyle choices (such as table-scaping, scrap-booking, restaurants, fashion, nail and hair salons)? Are they building real businesses to address substantive economically-sound challenges of the global 21st competitive marketplace?
Are today’s young women preparing themselves for the challenge of executive leadership? Or are they just retreating to the perceived belief that nonprofits will give them greater personal satisfaction? Is their service mentality financially- and economically-sustainable for women, today, during at career which potentially will span more than 4 decades?
Are women-owned businesses paying their fair share of society’s taxes, wages, pensions, and health insurance? Are they hiring their share of workers and executives, themselves? Or are women-owned businesses simply not-for-profit entities that provide personal satisfaction, but do not cover resource costs and only exist at the behest of charitable donations or public grants?
Are women entrepreneurs growing their firms, attracting shareholder investments, building their own boards and including women directors on their on boards? Or are women simply hoping that men will do all the really hard work alone?
In 2009, the Boston report shoots all of the "critical imperatives" at the companies and their failure at succession planning and "finding" women. Nothing is said about how or whether women in the pipeline are acquiring P&L experience, functional expertise that would be of value to boards, and/or whether women are making themselves visible in today’s more competitive and global marketplace.
Nevertheless, if anyone were to evaluate the credentials of the women directors and executives in Boston, as listed in the appendices, they would have no question whatsoever that these talented women understand the challenges and have stepped up to meet them.
It certainly would be nice to read more about these women of achievement and the paths they pursued to their leadership roles. Who knows how inspiring that might be to the next generation of young women who might follow them to the very top?
As is typical of these reports, the 2009 study cites "a troubling trend" about "women losing ground" in their quest for a match made in heaven -– a corporate board or executive role at a Top 100 Firm in Massachusetts. The members-only nonprofit continues the 13-state harangue against companies whom they argue are the sole source of the angst in corporate America. According to The Boston Club, it is the fault of all those "pale, stale, ancient males" who continue their "zero-zero" strategy of excluding the most promising women from the executive suites and from the boardroom. They echo their sister organizations’ lament about the tragedy of the "static" and "flat" trends.
First, we should remind the researchers in Bean-Town that we have been in a horrific recession since the 3rd quarter of 2007. Most economic data describing the last two years' activity typically reported declines of 30 to 50 percent all the way to triple digits downward. So, if women on board data reveals merely a flat trend, then that would suggest that women in leadership at that level did not lose out, comparatively speaking.
But, the data holds many more treasures that the researchers have overlooked in their enthusiasm to strafe male-dominated corporations. Fact No. 1: since Boston began surveying the state’s Global 100 firms in 2001, 18 women were added to boards even though the number of male occupied seats declined by 12. Fact No. 2: The number of "zero" firms (those with no women directors) declined by 10. Fact No. 3: The number of firms with three women directors increased by 4 (from 5 firms to 9 firms). Fact No. 4: Four women are CEO/Chair of the companies where they serve as directors -– no small achievement. And, for those who wish to stay current, Fact No. 5: Massachusetts added 9 new women corporate directors to top corporations in the first 10 months of 2009, alone, according the press release announcements tracked by NewsOnWomen.com
The dot-com bust of 2000-2001 and the subsequent years of financial stupidity wreaked havoc on Boston’s Top 100 firms, suggesting the local economy has not exactly been risk-free. Turnover of firms on the Boston 100 (due to mergers, acquisitions, relocations, and revenue declines) has been high. Almost half of the firms (a total of 49) left the Boston 100 since 2003 alone. This makes comparisons very difficult.
From-To Firms Leaving
2003-2004 11
2004-2005 6
2005-2006 6
2006-2007 11
2007-2008 11
2008-2009 4
By 2009, The Boston 100 list included 37 new companies which were not on the list in 2003. Almost half of these new, young businesses (17 firms) had 1, 2 or 3 women directors for a total of 23 women in leadership. (Nineteen firms had no women directors.)
The biggest concern of these women-on-boards advocacy groups should not be at the board level, where women ARE holding their own. We should be much more concerned about the chilling, negative effect their reports have on the next generation of young, aspiring women "in the pipeline" who are trying to decide if they want to come up the executive ranks into leadership roles.
If I were a young woman in business school today who was repeatedly hit with this depressing, discouraging commentary from my "senior sisters," I would not be encouraged to stay on course for a leadership positions as I did back when I was in B-School. And back then, you could feel and taste bias and prejudice against women’s advancement -– today, those would be grounds for a lawsuit.
In 2001, when The Boston Club first began issuing their reports, they found 133 women executives among the total of 794 executives (or 17%) at the state’s top 100 firms. In 2009, they found 60 women executives out of a total of 679 (8.6%) or a decline of 73 women "in the pipeline" on track to leadership compared to a decline of 53 overall. This is the true "critical challenge" facing women.
In 2001, the survey of CEOs at the Boston Top 100 firms spoke of 3 critical imperatives for board qualification:
1. profit and loss experience
2. functional expertise
3. visibility to other CEOs.
The Boston report suggests that women are leaving corporations in large numbers to start new entrepreneurial businesses. In December 2009, the Small Business Administration will release their findings from the nation-wide survey of women-owned businesses which will provide us tremendous insight into this arena.
For example, are today’s young women retreating to viable businesses or are they swarming to uneconomic hobby/lifestyle choices (such as table-scaping, scrap-booking, restaurants, fashion, nail and hair salons)? Are they building real businesses to address substantive economically-sound challenges of the global 21st competitive marketplace?
Are today’s young women preparing themselves for the challenge of executive leadership? Or are they just retreating to the perceived belief that nonprofits will give them greater personal satisfaction? Is their service mentality financially- and economically-sustainable for women, today, during at career which potentially will span more than 4 decades?
Are women-owned businesses paying their fair share of society’s taxes, wages, pensions, and health insurance? Are they hiring their share of workers and executives, themselves? Or are women-owned businesses simply not-for-profit entities that provide personal satisfaction, but do not cover resource costs and only exist at the behest of charitable donations or public grants?
Are women entrepreneurs growing their firms, attracting shareholder investments, building their own boards and including women directors on their on boards? Or are women simply hoping that men will do all the really hard work alone?
In 2009, the Boston report shoots all of the "critical imperatives" at the companies and their failure at succession planning and "finding" women. Nothing is said about how or whether women in the pipeline are acquiring P&L experience, functional expertise that would be of value to boards, and/or whether women are making themselves visible in today’s more competitive and global marketplace.
Nevertheless, if anyone were to evaluate the credentials of the women directors and executives in Boston, as listed in the appendices, they would have no question whatsoever that these talented women understand the challenges and have stepped up to meet them.
It certainly would be nice to read more about these women of achievement and the paths they pursued to their leadership roles. Who knows how inspiring that might be to the next generation of young women who might follow them to the very top?
# posted by ChampionBoards.com @ 11:22 AM 
