Comments

Yes reading article in BW was a waste of time, so sad that the 'Leaders' are 'thinking' at such a superficial level. With the amount these guys get paid it's reasonable to expect that they can do better than this, I could, and certainly you could Tom.
What do the shareholders need these guys for? Maybe there thinking level IS the problem!

Posted by Stu Kirk at December 10, 2008 6:22 PM

And we care, because?

Posted by Patrick at December 11, 2008 8:39 AM

I also have issues with Business Week; at first I thought it was great and full of interesting analysis of the business world, but the gloss soon came off and I started seeing the magazine as a place for the MBA/CEO/management crowd to pat themselves on the back. Looks like this article is yet another example. Shame.

Posted by RJTame at December 11, 2008 11:26 AM

Where's the passion and the excitement? Are they really the 6 most inspirational CEO's that can be found in the whole of the US?

Posted by Trevor Gay at December 11, 2008 1:59 PM

Fortune 500 = 494 Males CEO's 6 Female CEO's. And the beat goes on.

Posted by David Porter at December 11, 2008 7:52 PM

The whole idea that being a CEO of a large company is such a gigantic important accomplishment is a very male idea.
Maybe its just not as important to women as it is to men. Would women make better CEO's then men just because they happen to be women and therefore have an immediate 'different perspective on things?' Very tall people and very short people also have different perspectives on things - maybe we should be looking at the median heights of the CEO's.
Also, all this talk about passion and excitement gets tiresome. I bet all the top tier people at Enron were passionate. I George Bush and Dick Cheney were passionate - and in fact were blinded by that very passion in the run up to the Gulf War.
I bet the people who came up with and sold the idea of Credit Default Swaps were passionate.
The again, I was quite passionate about wanting Obama to be elected. Passion and enthusiasm can cut both ways.

Posted by zed at December 14, 2008 2:36 PM

Zed – I like your thinking. What’s so big about becoming a CEO anyway? In my younger days in my healthcare career I had ambition to become a CEO – I never did for whatever reason - then I grew up. I realised actually the world is made up of millions of us mere mortals who are just good foot soldiers. CEO’s are not always the brightest and the best. Maybe the thing we should be looking at regarding this gender argument is; who are the people with the most influence in organisations? – And let no one kid themselves it is the CEO who has the most influence.

Posted by Trevor Gay at December 14, 2008 3:25 PM

Who would make a good woman Preisdent of the United States?
Michelle Obama - But, although she is probably more capable than Hillary Clinton, she does not appear to have any interest in the job - and I bet a big reason why is she beleives being a mother is more important than being President -
It is not a capability issue - it is a priorities issue -
what makes women different than men is their attitide towards the importance of children and that is what keeps women from pursuing such as CEO.
Think back to the 60 minutes interview in 1993 with Hillary and Bill when hillary said she was no Tammy Wynette singing stand by your man.
Michelle obviously stands by her man and would never say or believe anything like Hillary said. What would make Michelle a far better President than Hillary is what she believes about what motherhood is supposed to be - but it is sort of a catch 22, because it would keep her from running for President.

Posted by zed at December 14, 2008 7:00 PM