IMHO, One Major Pharma Company Should NOT Be On NAFE's List of 50 Top Companies for Women Executives

IMHO, One Major Pharma Company Should NOT Be On NAFE's List of 50 Top Companies for Women Executives

NAFE -- the National Association for Female Executives -- released it list of the top 50 for-profit companies that that are "paving the way in women's advancement." Women in these companies hold 23 percent of board seats (versus 16 percent at the Fortune 500) and represent 14 percent of CEOs (versus 2 percent).

Pharma companies in the list (find it here) include:

• Abbott
• AstraZeneca
• Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceutical USA
• Bristol-Myers Squibb
• Eli Lilly and Company
• Johnson & Johnson
• Merck
• Pfizer Inc

NOT included in the list are several of the other Top 20 pharma companies in terms of sales:

• Novartis
• Sanofi-Aventis
• GlaxoSmithKline
• Roche
• Bayer
• Novo Nordisk

Here's NAFE's methodology for choosing companies to be on the list:

In addition to assessing corporate programs and policies dedicated to advancing women, NAFE measured results, examining the number of women in each company overall, in senior management, and on its board of directors. They drew particular attention to the number of women with profit-and-loss responsibility. To be named to the NAFE Top Companies for Executive Women, companies with a minimum of two women on the board completed a comprehensive application that focused on the number of women in senior ranks (compared to men and to the company population), including questions about the programs and policies which support women's advancement.

It seems to be a numbers game for the most part. Not taken into account is whether or not women executives were made scape goats by their male superiors. If that had been part of NAFE's methodology, perhaps Johnson and Johnson would not have made the list this year.

Recall that Johnson and Johnson's male CEO forced a female executive to face a Congressional Committee rather than do it himself (see "J&J's Goggins Takes Bullet for CEO Weldon").

J&J's Goggins Takes Bullet for CEO Weldon

J&J's Goggins Takes Bullet for CEO Weldon

The New York Times reports that Colleen A. Goggins, who testified this spring before a Congressional committee investigating the recalls, will retire in March. Recall that I likened Googins testimony to that of a deer caught in the headlights (see "Parallels Between BP and J&J") and that J&J's CEO Weldon should take his medicine like a man and appear before Congress (see here). Ninety-three percent (93%) of my readers taking a poll agreed.

The NY Times reported: Mr. Weldon, who did not testify at the first hearing because he was recovering from back surgery, said he would appear for the next round. “I will definitely testify,” Mr. Weldon said. “I wanted to testify at the last one.”

Sure you did Bill. But you let poor Colleen take the bullet for you. I don't imagine that you are giving Colleen a gold watch for her retirement -- although you are probably giving her a golden parachute or maybe one of these?

Here's how it works.

Googins goes before Congress and is not quite truthful: Congress has invited Goggins back to testify because "when you appeared before the committee on May 27, 2010, you testified that you were not aware of the behavior of the contractors who conducted the phantom recall. However, after that hearing the committee obtained a Johnson & Johnson//McNeil document that instructed the contractors how to behave while conducting the phantom recall."

Goggins subsequently announces "her decision" to "retire."

Weldon then announces he will "definitely testify."

During his testimony Weldon will claim no knowledge of the phantom recall and imply that it was something "previous" management was responsible for and since then things have changed.

In other words, Goggins is expected to figuratively use the corporate Hari Kari sword and assume responsibility.

"Ms. Goggins," says the NY Times, "could not be reached for comment."

Should J&J's CEO Weldon Take His Medicine Like a Man and Appear Before Congress as Requested?

Should J&J's CEO Weldon Take His Medicine Like a Man and Appear Before Congress as Requested?

Johnson & Johnson CEO William Weldon was asked yesterday to appear before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform for a second time to testify on product recalls at its McNeil Consumer Healthcare subsidiary in Fort Washington, Pa. The hearing is scheduled for June 30 in Washington.

Recall that Weldon declined to testify previously claiming he was recovering from back surgery and could not make the trip (see "JNJ's CEO Weldon May Send Underling to Congress. The Aching Back Excuse"). Instead, he sent Colleen A. Goggins, Worldwide Chairman, Consumer Group, Johnson & Johnson, in his place. Ms. Goggins looked like a deer caught in the headlights as she faced lawmakers at that hearing (see "Parallels Between BP and J&J").

This time, Weldon should take notice of the attachment to the invitation that says "Witnesses with disabilities should contact Committee staff to arrange any necessary accommodations." [See "The Video Option" at end of this post.]

I think that Weldon should take his medicine like a man and testify in person. What do you think? Please take my little poll and let me know:

Should J&J's CEO William Weldon Appear Before Congress as Requested?
	Yes
	No

The Video Option
Aileen Katcher (@AKatcher), a healthcare PR specialist, tweeted me: "You don't give the option of appearing via video feed should his condition require." Maybe that would be an option, but I am afraid Weldon might emulate Clinton and respond to inquires about McNeil's "phantom recall" with "It depends on what you mean by 'recall'". [For more on the phantom recall, see "Parallels Between BP and J&J".]