Last week I spoke at a reception for the Top 100 Woman-Led Businesses in Massachusetts. It was a grand celebration and one which the chief executive women richly deserved. The reception marked the fifth time that The Center for Women's Leadership at Babson and The Commonwealth Institute have collaborated to conduct the research on the senior executive women of Massachusetts; we wanted to tell their story not simply through a snapshot in time, but over six years of sustained accomplishment and growth. Our research has been on-going since 2000.
It was a grand celebration last week indeed. But do you know why? It wasn't just because there are women leading terrific companies. On average, these CEOs have been doing that for 15 years, so the top spot is old hat for them. And, it's not just that their companies are present in such a wide range of industries, proving the stereotypes wrong that women can only lead in those "traditional" industries that they're "supposed to know about" like fashion or cosmetics (not that there's anything wrong with those widely profitable opportunities). Our study shows that woman-led firms can be found in any segment of the economy. And, it's not because, lo and behold, they all have found a way to lead their companies and have fulfilling personal lives as well. Well, of course they have - what great leader is only one-sided?!!
No, those would be good reasons to celebrate, but that's not why these women CEOs deserved a party. It's about the wealth they create! That's why they deserved to celebrate. When we think about wealth creation, the obvious place to start is with the money. But it's not just about how big their companies are - even when the very biggest of the firms in the research study is left out, the average firm had revenues of nearly $40 million in 2005 - it's really about what their outlook is for growth. The annual revenue growth of the woman-led Massachusetts companies we studied is striking -- more than 55% of the companies are growing at a pace well over the state and national averages, with expectations to stay on that pace going forward. The Top 100 woman-led businesses in Massachusetts are a group of companies that generated $10 billion in 2005, with average growth on a pace of 5% or more. That was worth a celebration!
In addition to the revenue generation and pace of growth, however, these chief executives create wealth through the people they employ. The Top 100 woman-led companies in Massachusetts employ more than 21,000 people! We know from past research that they invest in these employees, providing managerial development training and focusing on an organization culture that values collaboration. Indeed, in this year's survey, most of the CEOs told us that their preferred leadership style is a participatory one. They want to tap the wisdom of the people who work in your firms. And, their recipe of people-powered performance creates value for their firms and funnels wealth back into the economy through the people they employ. These chief executives may take that for granted, but it is an essential piece of value creation that happens through their leadership.
So there's the money, the growth, the investment in people and the multiplier effect of job creation - all of them indicators of the wealth creation power of this group of women executives. But there's one more aspect of wealth creation that really stands out from this year's research, and that's the philanthropic activity of their firms. Woman-led firms are active wealth creators through philanthropy. Over one-third of their companies engage in philanthropy with local community, charitable or non-profit organizations on a monthly basis and nearly all of them do so annually. Further, regardless of the size of your company, the more women employees a firm has, the more frequently their company participates in philanthropy. Since the typical woman-led firm has an employee base that is nearly 60% female, that means there's an awful lot of social wealth creation going on!
The CEOs of the Top 100 Woman-Led Firms in Massachusetts have got the total package put together - making a difference economically, socially, and philanthropically. As significant wealth creators for our economy and investors in the future, the work they do and the way in which they lead is extraordinary. They deserved to celebrate at last week's reception and I was glad to be there with them.
Earlier this week I was copied on an email from Candy Brush. A student had forwarded her the article from Monday's WSJ which presents a "ranking of influential business thinkers" compiled for the Journal by Babson's own Tom Davenport. Professor Davenport used a methodology he developed earlier for his book ," What's the Big Idea," and measures according to Google hits, media mentions, and academic citations. I'm not reproducing the list here - but even the WSJ asked where the women were. The one woman on the 2003 list (Rosabeth Moss Kanter) has fallen off and no woman entered into the list.
Well, a flurry of email followed among a group of female academics. All of us wished there were some women on the list, but I think we started asking the right questions. We talked about the methodology, and thought we might be able to help with a different starting list next time as to the 100 leading business gurus. We wondered about the definition of "business guru" and certainly "top business guru." I'm challenging us all to continue that debate, so my first question is - how would you propose as female "top business gurus?" And if we are struggling with the list - that is a different question.
So, I emailed Tom Davenport and asked if he'd be willing to be part of a blog discussion on this. His answer came back almost right away - absolutely. Therefore, my friends, please share. Why did this list hit us so hard? Are women really not in this arena at all? And if so, why not?
Patti
Well, there is no doubt that the issue raised about the lack of women in the Davenport list of "Management Gurus" has struck a chord. Tom Davenport himself talked about this in his most recent blog (http://discussionleader.hbsp.com/davenport/2008/05/the_dearth_of_female_managemen.html). In his blog, Tom considers a few women who might have been candidates for the list, some academics and some from different areas of life, and suggests reasons why they aren't there. That having to be alive part was a tough one. However, the most interesting part of his blog are his Rules on How to Become a Management Guru. Here is my summary version of his rules but please check them out for yourself.
1) Be old. Ooops, not old but in the field for a couple of decades. Take-away conclusion - Impact takes time. (Is this one from the U.S. Presidential race?)
2) Write a huge best-seller. Ok, we're all trying to figure that one out. The women who have had the most success at this are largely from "outside the field."
3) Have a regular outlet for your writing. Makes sense to me.
4) Don't be a second author. So the strategy has to be about how to be that first author (see Rule #1)
5) Be in the U.S. We'll see how this holds for 2012 (the possible next list?)
6) Pick "broad, sweeping topics." And we're back to impact again.
Tom closes by asking if women can pull this off. Another question is whether women want to or if there is a different kind of "impact" list that would matter even more.
Patti
