Why We Publish A Women Of Influence List

Lists organized around a demographic category attract a consistent objection: that separating people out implies they could not compete on a general list. It is a serious argument and it deserves a direct answer.

The objection

A separate list can suggest a lesser standard, treat a group as a special interest rather than as part of the whole, and let a publication congratulate itself while its main coverage remains unchanged.

These are real risks. They are also observable failures at publications that run such lists.

Our answer

General lists reflect who currently holds senior positions, and in many New York industries those positions remain disproportionately held by men — a fact about the structure of those industries rather than about the distribution of ability.

A list that only counted current chief executives would reproduce that structure and describe the result as merit. Assessing influence across a wider range of roles surfaces people whose effect on outcomes is real and whose position is less conventional.

The standard is the same

Selection uses the same criteria as our other lists: the capacity to affect outcomes, the scale of what is affected, durability, and a genuine New York connection.

Every entry is verified the same way, against sources we can point to, with no estimated figures and a right of reply before publication.

What would make this unnecessary

A general list that reflected the full range of who actually holds influence, produced by a newsroom whose ordinary coverage did not skew toward the already-covered.

We are not there, and neither is the industry. We would rather publish this and say why than pretend the problem is solved.

What we will not do

Sell places. Treat the list as a commercial product for sponsors. Use it as a substitute for who appears in our general coverage — which is the measure we hold ourselves to, and the one readers should hold us to.