COULD ANY great list be more subjective – okay, read that as “wrong” – than a list from an American magazine that purports to declare the definitive collection of the world’s most powerful women?
Arguably, no. The challenging questions are nearly endless . . . Such as, what is power anyway? How is it different than influence? And who is this magazine doing the declaring?
Forbesmagazine, founded in the heyday of American magazines in 1917 and one of three US business magazines currently in steep circulation and advertising decline – its competitors are B usinessweekand Fortune– is relying increasingly on snappy gimmicks to get attention from readers, media and advertisers.
Hence . . . lists! Lists of women and billionaires and youngest and oldest and most and least . . . and anything in between. In this latest “women” collection, it’s a clear-eyed appeal from a mostly male, even stodgy, business magazine to lively female readers/consumers and the advertising directed at them.
So, that real-world caveat aside, the Forbeslist is a well-produced and carefully calibrated international index that, according to its creators, was based on an inventory of three metrics: money, traditional and social media influence, and a number of power-based points, meaning the power of those listed must stem from multiple spheres of influence, not just a single source of authority.
That seems reasonable. Except of course, under this criteria, what would happen to the woman out there who would soon, say, in a singular sphere of influence within her narrow little life, solely find the cure for cancer, and do so without appearing on the cover of the New York Times Magazine(traditional media), having a million Twitter followers, (social media), or making a financial fortune (selling . . . what?)
Okay, we are being churlish. Let’s get to the “100 Most Powerful Women in the World List”. Here is what these 100 have in common: their average age is 54; 29 are chief executives; eight are heads of state, and 22 of them are single. Seventy-four of them have been on the list before. Not uninterestingly, 88 per cent are mothers.
Collectively, they control $30 trillion (€20.8 trillion).
Some of the choices are inarguable, and have been in the top 10 for many years, such as Hillary Clinton. This year, US secretary of state Clinton is No 2 behind Germany’s Angela Merkel. It would be difficult to dispute either woman’s position on top, no matter what the metrics. When they speak, the entire world listens.
Last year first lady Michelle Obama was No 1, and this year she is No 8. Again, that seems fair; the world’s most pressing issues – its economic condition and the US’s role in the world – fall squarely on Merkel, Clinton, and many of the rest of the top 20.
Those are matters well outside what appears to be Michelle Obama’s interests. Organic gardening and issues of obesity simply haven’t topped the world agenda in 2011.
Things get murkier elsewhere on the list. Take, for instance, US presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann, at No 22. Bachmann is without question a telegenic US political phenomenon. In running for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination, she has surprised the media and confounded political expectations by not behaving like the utter nutcase everyone thought she was.
A Congresswoman with scant legislative achievement, Bachmann is one of several leading voices for the Tea Party movement and its issues of smaller government and less taxation.
However, she is unlikely to win her party’s nomination, especially with the entrance of Texas governor Rick Perry in the race.
Her support of the eventual nominee will be sought, and that is about it. Her impact on the world is minimal, and it is hard to contemplate what power she has outside of a limited role in US party politics.
That she would appear on the list ahead of Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II (No 49) or Vogue magazine editor Anna Wintour (No 69), a woman who singlehandedly exerts control over the entire international fashion industry, seems preposterous. That said, Bachmann does sell magazines, and was recently on the cover of Newsweek.
Forbes says it made its selections in its categories by including numbers of news hits by Facebook fans and Twitter followers.
This may be true, but there are some glaring omissions. The oversights themselves shine a light on the challenge that traditional media finds itself in as it tries to redefine itself, its own scope and its analysis of the traditional categories of power and leadership.
Television newsreader Diane Sawyer, No 47, for example, has about 35,000 Facebook and Twitter followers. She is watched by about three million people on ABC News. But what about Kim Kardashian, the socialite, television personality, model, and actor?
Now the reasonable argument would be that Kardashian is nothing more than a minor celebrity and a reality show star. Kardashian's own Facebook page describes her only as a public figure, and Forbescertainly has no category for that.
But Kardashian has well over nine million Twitter followers and more than million Facebook fans. Her recent wedding dominated the US news cycle.
How about this offer from her Facebook page? Says Kardashian: "I love this dress from our Kardashian Kollection. It's only $69." Some 6,157 people replied that they "liked" the dress, and another 450 people commented on it. The New York Timesand ABC News would kill for a following like that.
Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund and No 9 on the list, says the definition of power is “the ability to set the agenda”. That is as useful a definition as any, and it crosses any categorical lines.
The problem that Forbeshas with this list – and the problem that traditional media has right now – is not in defining power, but in defining categories of power. In redefining "reach", social media has redefined categories, and old media is still scratching its head.
How do you define the reach and unquestionable power of a Kim Kardashian?
For now, apparently, you don’t.
So the list itself may be one of the last vestiges of an old form trying to break out and find attention.
For the profiles and interviews of the remarkable women on the list, Forbeshas one timeless thing going for it – it's a great read.
Forbes's Top Ten Powerful Women
1 Angela Merkel
German chancellor
2 Hillary Clinton
US secretary of state
3 Dilma Rousseff
President of Brazil
4 Indra Nooyi
Chief executive of Pepsi
5 Sheryl Sandberg
Chief operations officer at Facebook
6 Melinda Gates
Co-founder of Bill Melinda Gates Foundation
7 Sonia Gandhi
Indian National Congress president
8 Michelle Obama
First Lady of the United States
9 Christine Lagarde
MD of International Monetary Fund
10 Irene Rosenfeld
Chief executive of Kraft Foods