Why is it that every time General Motors CEO Mary Barra's name is mentioned, "the first female CEO of a major car company" is always tacked on? Pardon my French, but who gives a shit what her gender is?
When I buy a car, I want a GOOD CAR. (Actually I want a great car.) I don't care if the CEO is young, old, a snappy dresser, a slob, bald, hairy, or has to gum their bologna sandwich. I don't buy or not buy anything because of the CEO. If he/she can put together a team that can make a superior product, or perform a superior service, kudos to them! Here's my money.
His or her integrity is important to me, but I think that will inevitably show through in their product. And I research things well enough before I buy that I'm pretty sure I can avoid buying crappy stuff from thieving companies.
Now here's where I get controversial: I don't necessarily believe in staffing based on demographics. I don't believe they must have a certain percentage of their workforce white, black, young, old, male, female, or anything else. This is often made into a racial or gender (and now sexual preference) equality issue, but I truly believe a good CEO running a top-notch company will hire THE BEST people he/she can find.
As Martin Luther King said, it's all about the content of their character, not the color of their skin (or their gender, or their age, etc). If a company wants to preserve their "good old boy" mentality it will show, and customers will drift towards progressive companies that hire the best people and produce the best products. I believe the corporate knuckle draggers are steadily losing their grip on the Ivory Towers.
So if Mary Barra wants me to buy a GM car, she'll have to produce one that is better than what I can buy elsewhere. Her novelty means nothing to me.
S
