Forbes' 100 Most Innovative Leaders list includes 99 men. Here's how their methodology was flawed

Come on, guys.

The fine folks at Forbes are currently falling all over themselves trying to clean up the mess they created by publishing their 2019 list of 100 Most Innovative Leaders.

The problem: The list included 99 men and one woman. For those not so good with the math, that means according to Forbes, only 1% of the country's most innovative leaders are female.

Have you ever watched a movie that's so abysmally bad that you wonder how it ever even got made? Where you think, "Hundreds and hundreds of people had to have been directly involved in the production of this film. Did any of them ever think to say, 'Hey, maybe we should just scrap this idea altogether?"

That's how it feels to see a list like this. So how did Forbes come up with these results?


Let's start with the description at the top of the published list, synopsizing who compiled the list and how:

"Business school professors Jeff Dyer, Nathan Furr and Mike Hendron teamed up with consultant Curtis Lefrandt to measure four essential leadership qualities of top founders and CEOs: media reputation for innovation, social connections, track record for value creation and investor expectations for value creation. The researchers then ranked these visionaries in a high-powered selection of 100 innovators at top U.S. companies."

So right off the bat, we have four men in the business world deciding on the criteria for what makes an innovative leader. There's no way those men could have some biases they aren't aware of, right?

Perhaps that's not a fair assumption on its face, but when a list those men compile includes 99 men and one lone woman? Yeah, I'm gonna go with bias, conscious or unconscious.

Then we have the four criteria they used. Hoo boy. Here's where it becomes painfully obvious to anyone with an inkling of gender equality dynamics and an ability to do a Google search why only one woman ended up on their list.

RELATED: Women make better leaders despite lack of representation, study finds

Let's take a look at the criteria, which you can read about more here, one by one:

1) Media reputation for innovation

Yes, let's uses media reputation as criteria when women are famously underrepresented in the media.

As the Harvard Business Review reports, "Around the world, women are far less likely than men to be seen in the media. As subjects of stories, women only appear in a quarter of television, radio, and print news. In a 2015 report, women made up a mere 19% of experts featured in news stories and 37% of reporters telling stories globally."

We already know that women are underrepresented in top business leadership positions. Combine that fact with women being underrepresented in the media, and this one criteria alone already puts women at a disadvantage.

Next...

2) Social connections/Social capital

Umm, has no one at Forbes ever heard of the "good old boys" network? Are they unaware of the tendency for the historical wealth and power held by men to perpetuate because of men's "social connections" and "social capital" with one another?

How many business meetings are conducted at "gentlemen's clubs"? Cigars after dinner? Golf, anyone?

Of course Forbes know about this. They've even published articles about it.

Let's tack on the fact that the second most powerful leader in our nation won't meet with a woman without a chaperone, but has no problem meeting with a man alone.

Yeah. Those social "connections" and "capital" are sometimes generations deep and pretty obviously limited for women in multiple ways.

3) Track record of market value creation at the company they lead

This is a bit stickier of a criteria to examine, mainly because it seems like a pretty straight-forward data point. But when we break down what it takes for a company to create market value, it starts with funding to get the company off the ground to begin with.

And guess what—women receive far, far less venture capital than men do.

Wharton School of Management professor Ethan Mollick says that 38% to 40% of all U.S. startups have female cofounders, and 40% of companies are funded by venture capitalists. But those numbers don't overlap. Only 2% to 4% of VC funded companies have female cofounders.

"There are a bunch of reasons," says Mollick, "but one key reason seems to be — and this is a problem that we see in discrimination everywhere — something we call 'homophily.' It's the principle that 'birds of a feather flock together.' People like people like themselves. VCs tend to be mostly male; they have friend networks that are mostly male. As a result, you have a very strong network of men who talk to each other, and it's very hard for a woman to get access to these people."

"It doesn't matter how proactive and feminist you are as a guy," he continues. "If the network you are part of is mostly men, you're just not going to see as many women's projects, you're not going to hear in your network about as many successful women. You're not going to be able to do due diligence as easily. This has been a problem in a lot of fields."

So again, women are at a disadvantage on this criteria from the starting line—and it has nothing to do with how innovative they are.

RELATED: 11 facts about women-run businesses that prove the future really is female.

4) Investor expectations of future growth and innovation at their firm

You can probably guess by now what kinds of expectations investors (who we already know are primarily male) have of the future of women's businesses. But let's look at some data anyway.

Columbia University doctoral fellow Dana Kanze conducted a study on pitch competitions, where aspiring entrepreneurs attempt to convince investors to support their business ideas. Interestingly, her team found that investors ask men and women different kinds of questions—and those differences can affect how they view their likelihood of success, and therefore, their "expectations of future growth."

As Inc.com reports:

"Kanze and her team, which includes Laura Huang of Harvard Business School and Mark Conley and E. Tory Higgins of Columbia, dissected the video of 189 company presentations at TechCrunch Disrupt from 2010 to 2016. They found that 67 percent of the questions posed to male entrepreneurs were so-called promotion questions, on subjects such as the total addressable market. By contrast, some 66 percent of the questions asked of female entrepreneurs were prevention-focused: How to defend market share or protect intellectual property, for instance.

The entrepreneurs, not surprisingly, reacted in kind. Ask a guy how big his market is, and, not surprisingly, he'll tell you. Ask a woman how she'll defend her market share, and she'll answer. But the net result is that the women end up looking like they're playing defense, while the men end up looking like the ones with the big visions who are going to change the world. 'You're going to walk away from that conversation thinking the women just care about not losing money,' Kanze says. Her research found that for every additional prevention question an entrepreneur is asked, he or she raised $3.8 million less in aggregate funding."

The difference in questioning is subtle and unconscious. "No one is sitting there saying, 'Hey, you asked him different questions,' Kanze says. "This is the cycle of bias we are trying to break."

And it is this "cycle of bias" that is the entire problem with the methodology used to create the Forbes list. How all of this slipped past the folks responsible for it is baffling, but also a clear example of the problem—men in the business world are so deep in the pool they can't see the obstacles that keep others out of it.

What I can't figure out is how the final list was ever allowed to go to publication. I mean, this is 2019. Everyone is aware of bias at this point. As soon as the numbers were crunched, the data was aggregated, and the results came back with 99 men and one woman, a red flag should have waved in front of the face of everyone involved.

Moira Forbes, a fourth generation Forbes family member—and the first female to be part of the company (ahem)—expressed that she was "disheartened" to read the list, acknowledged that criticisms were warranted, and said she shared many of the same sentiments as those who have complained.

Forbes editor-in-chief Randall Lane wrote a "reflection" on the lack of women on the list, acknowledging that there were flaws in the methodology but falling short of recognizing the full extent of what those were.

"Our methodology was flawed, as well—at a minimum when it came to being more expansive with who was eligible to be ranked. While each data point individually made logical sense, as did focusing on data-rich public companies, the entire exercise collapses if the possible ranking pool doesn't correlate at least somewhat with the overall pool of innovative talent. It would be intellectually dishonest to construct a methodology designed to generate a predetermined result, but in this case the forest got lost in the trees."

Here's the thing, though—each data point only "made logical sense" if you are looking through the lens of a male who is oblivious of how those data points filter out women. No one is looking to "generate a predetermined result." What we want is a methodology that actually measures innovation in a meaningful way and not with criteria that simply reinforce the workings and dynamics of the male-dominated business world.

TLDR: You should have known better, guys—if not from the start, from the moment the results came back so completely male-heavy. And that fact that you either didn't notice the gender discrepancy—or did, but didn't bother to reexamine the methodology before taking the list to publication—is the crux of the entire problem in the first place.

Innovation

As a child, Dr. Sangeeta Bhatia's parents didn't ask her what she wanted to be when she grew up. Instead, her father would ask, "Are you going to be a doctor? Are you going to be an engineer? Or are you going to be an entrepreneur?"

Little did he know that she would successfully become all three: an award-winning biomedical and mechanical engineer who performs cutting-edge medical research and has started multiple companies.

Bhatia holds an M.D. from Harvard University, an M.S. in mechanical engineering from MIT, and a PhD in biomedical engineering from MIT. Bhatia, a Wilson professor of engineering at MIT, is currently serving as director of the Marble Center for Cancer Nanomedicine, where she's working on nanotechnology targeting enzymes in cancer cells. This would allow cancer screenings to be done with a simple urine test.

Bhatia owes much of her impressive career to her family. Her parents were refugees who met in graduate school in India; in fact, she says her mom was the first woman to earn an MBA in the country. The couple immigrated to the U.S. in the 1960s, started a family, and worked hard to give their two daughters the best opportunities.

"They made enormous sacrifices to pick a town with great public schools and really push us to excel the whole way," Bhatia says. "They really believed in us, but they expected excellence. The story I like to tell about my dad is like, if you brought home a 96 on a math test, the response would be, 'What'd you get wrong?'"

Keep Reading Show less
Packard Foundation
True

Someday, future Americans will look back on this era of school shootings in bafflement and disbelief—not only over the fact that it happened, but over how long it took us to enact significant legislation to try to stop it.

Five people die from vaping, and the government talks about banning vaping devices. Hundreds of American children have been shot to death in their classrooms, sometimes a dozen or so at a time, and the government has done practically nothing. It's unconscionable.

Keep Reading Show less
Education & Information
via Hollie Bellew-Shaw / Facebook

For those of us who are not on the spectrum, it can be hard to perceive the world through the senses of someone with autism.

"You could think of a person with autism as having an imbalanced set of senses," Stephen Shore, assistant professor in the School of Education at Adelphi University, told Web MD.

"Some senses may be turned up too high and some turned down too low. As a result, the data that comes in tends to be distorted, and it's very hard to perceive a person's environment accurately," Shore continued.

Keep Reading Show less
Education & Information
Truth

Don't test on animals. That's something we can all agree on, right? No one likes to think of defenseless cats, dogs, hamsters, and birds being exposed to a bunch of things that could make them sick (and the animals aren't happy about it, either). It's no wonder so many people and organizations have fought to stop it. But did you ever think that maybe brands are testing products on us too, they're just not telling us they're doing it?

I know, I know, it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but that's exactly what e-cigarette brands like JUUL (which corners the e-cigarette market) are doing in this country right now, and young people are on the frontlines of the fallout. Most people assume that the government would have looked at devices that allow people to inhale unknown chemicals into their lungs BEFORE they hit the market. You would think that someone in the government would have determined that they are safe. But nope, that hasn't happened. And vape companies are fighting to delay the government's ability to evaluate these products.

So no one really knows the long-term health effects of e-cigarette use, not even JUUL's CEO, nor are they informing the public about the potential risks. On top of that, according to the FDA, there's been a 78% increase in e-cigarette usage among high school and middle school-aged children in just the last two years, prompting the U.S. Surgeon General to officially recognize the trend as an epidemic and urge action against it.

These facts have elicited others to take action, as well.

Truth Initiative, the nonprofit best known for dropping the real facts about smoking and vaping since 2000 through its truth campaign, is now on a mission to confront e-cigarette brands like JUUL about the lack of care they've taken to inform consumers of the potential adverse side effects of their products. And they're doing it with the help of animal protesters who are tired of seeing humans treated like test subjects.

The March Against JUUL | Tested On Humans | truth www.youtube.com

"No one knows the long-term effects of JUULing so any human who uses one is being used as a lab rat," says, appropriately, Mario the Sewer Rat.

"I will never stop fighting JUUL. Or the mailman," notes Doug the Pug, the Instagram-famous dog star.

Truth, the national counter-marketing campaign for youth smoking prevention, hopes this fuzzy, squeaky, snorty animal movement arms humans with the facts about vaping and inspires them to demand transparency from JUUL and other e-cigarette companies. You can get your own fur babies involved too by sharing photos of them wearing protest gear with the hashtag #DontTestOnHumans. Here's some adorable inspo for you:

The dangerous stuff is already out there, but with knowledge on their side, young people will hopefully make the right choices and fight companies making the wrong ones. If you need more convincing, here are the serious facts.

Over the last decade, 127 e-cigarette-related seizures were reported, which prompted the FDA to launch an official investigation in April 2019. Since then, over 215 cases of a new, severe lung illness have sprung up all over the country, with six deaths to date. While scientists aren't yet sure of the root cause, the majority of victims were young adults who regularly vaped and used e-cigarettes. As such, the CDC has launched an official investigation into the potential link.

Sixteen-year-old Luka Kinard, a former frequent e-cigarette-user, is one of the many teens who experienced severe side effects. "Vaping was my biggest addiction," he told NowThis. "It lasted for about 15 months of my high school career." In 2018, Kinard was hospitalized after having a seizure. He also had severe nausea, chest pains, and difficulty breathing.

After the harrowing experience, he quit vaping, and began speaking out about his experience to help inform others and hopefully inspire them to quit and/or take action. "It shouldn't take having a seizure as a result of nicotine addiction like I had for teens to realize that these companies are taking advantage of what we don't know," Kinard said.

Teens are 16 times more likely to use e-cigarettes than adults, and four times more likely to take up traditional smoking as a result, according to truth, and yet the e-cigarette market remains virtually unregulated and untested. In fact, companies like JUUL continue to block and prevent FDA regulations, investing more than $1 million in lawyers and lobbying efforts in the last quarter alone.

Photo by Lindsay Fox/Pixabay

Consumers have a right to know what they're putting in their bodies. If everyone (and their pets) speaks up, the e-cigarette industry will have to make a change. Young people are already taking action across the country. They're hosting rallies nationwide and on October 9 as part of a National Day of Action, young people are urging their friends and classmates to "Ditch JUUL." Will you join them?

For help with quitting e-cigarettes, visit thetruth.com/quit or text DITCHJUUL to 88709 for free, anonymous resources.

truth
True