The European School of Management and Technology have recently produced a management case study based on the career of Madonna. Her ability to create a brand, (including choosing the right people to perpetuate that brand) and her aptitude in changing that brand at will at remaining recognisable have been cited as containing useful lessons for business. It would be fair to ask, “but why only now?”; after all, Madonna has been successfully branding and re-branding herself for close to two decades now. This case study can be seen as a salute to her sheer tenacity in a notoriously fickle industry – it seems unlikely that those who, in the 1980s, commented on who Madonna might be this week could have predicted her continued run of successes.
For women in less rock and roll industries, too, the news seems good. Recent research by Catalyst indicates that companies with women in upper management have higher profits than those without, and these findings apply across all industries. PepsiCo are soon to become the largest company (by stockmarket value) to be run by a woman, Indra Nooyi. This evidence points to gains made by individual women, but also indicates that hiring women in the highest management positions could mean a competitive advantage for a corporation.
Nevertheless, women are still grossly underrepresented in upper management. Only 11 of the Fortune 500 companies are run by women. Why, given the evidence above, should this be the case? In considering an aspect of this question, it is helpful to return to the example of Madonna, specifically her willingness to flaunt the evidence of her success. Her current adoption of typically upper class British sports such as horse riding are not only an important part of her latest brand, but also a clear signal that she has the means to live that lifestyle; her ‘Sex’ book in the early 1990s blatantly positioned her as a ‘have’ in the war between the haves and the have-nots. Whilst these moves have not always been without controversy, they have consistently situated Madonna as a successful woman. Whilst it may be a tired cliché that the impact of having been encouraged from a young age not to “show off” holds women back in their career, the lack of willingness to do so may be a factor in an unfairly slow career just as the apparent enthusiasm with which Madonna approaches “showing off” has been a factor in her success.
Evidence that women are less likely to broadcast their skills may be found in the entries to business schools. Entry for women to business degrees has levelled off at 30%, compared to 40% for law and medical degrees. Any one of these three careers – business, law, and medicine – have a work/life balance unfavourable to family life, so other factors are likely to be important. In industry, an MBA or business qualification can be what sets an employee apart; in law or medicine, the degree is necessary to practice. For this reason, taking a business degree is a form of self-promotion in the workplace. If women are not putting themselves forwards for one easily monitored opportunity to advance in industry, who knows when else they are not pushing their workplace advantage aggressively enough?
Posted by conspicuousconsumption 