Validity or Representation?

Validity or Representation?

Recently, yet another “ten best” lists appeared on Linkedin, and the source was kind enough to name me among “the top ten thought leaders in solo consulting.” These lists are always subjective, but I'm grateful for the inclusion and said so, proud to be in what was obviously very good company (I know all but one of them).

But a woman wrote in objecting to the fact that there was only a single female on the list. She noted that this was part of a history of oppressing women and ignoring their contributions. (There were no minorities on the list either, that I could determine, but I'm not sure. I don't investigate such things.)

I asked the woman what the appropriate number of women would be on a person's subjective list. She told me that the “easy answer” would be the ratio of women in the population, but then lapsed once again into a history of misogyny. It's wrong, of course, to exclude or include someone on a list because of their gender, race, ethnicity, ableness, sexual identity, or other such irrelevant factors.

But it's also wrong to create exemplars who are not successful but merely “representative.” There was a movement after 911 to change the iconic photo of three brave firefighters, who were white, raising the flag over the ruins of the World Trade Center, to include instead a black and hispanic figure, photocopied into the scene. You don't change the present by revisionist, historical denialism. But you can change the future by changing the present.

I once asked the chair of an association of women entrepreneurs and executives why she invited me to speak to the group. “Because,” she said, “we need the best exemplars for the group, and you're one of them.”