Rumor has it there’s a picture of Marysharon in the current issue of Fortune magazine. It’s the issue that talks about the best companies to work for, and she’s pictured under Microsoft. I haven’t seen the issue yet, but if you have let me know.
January 23, 2006
7 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
No, but I’ve seen her in some “other” magazines
Comment by Schulte — January 23, 2006 @ 1:35 pm
Page 2: http://i.cnn.net/money/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/classof06.pdf
Comment by Schulte — January 23, 2006 @ 1:40 pm
Wow, looks like most of the other companies thought of the “lets use our underrepresented minority” idea.
Comment by f — January 23, 2006 @ 1:45 pm
My understanding is they sent e-mails to a bunch of people at MS they had pictures of, and whoever replied and said they could use the picture had their pictures sent off to Fortune. In the end, Fortune picked amongst the options that were sent to them.
That’s not to say that all of the options that were sent to them weren’t underrepresented minorities, only that MS sent more than one person’s picture.
There are a lot of great “diverse” headshots though. I think my favorite is the representative for Men’s Warehouse (92), who is female.
Comment by Tom — January 23, 2006 @ 1:57 pm
I find it amusing because the article is about showing photos of the “typical” worker at each of these companies (”What does a best company look like?”). Based on this cross-section it seems like white males are around 20% of the workforce at these companies. I guess pretending diversity exists is a lot easier …
Comment by f — January 24, 2006 @ 8:50 am
It’s definitely a funny picture. But seriously, if they put a bunch of pictures of white men up there, America’s liberals/PC police would be outraged. Put up a bunch of diversity and they get made fun of. Neither option seems great, but I guess they chose the better one.
The Whole Foods Market guy is also classic.
Comment by Tom — January 24, 2006 @ 9:08 am
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL
Comment by Schulte — January 24, 2006 @ 7:49 pm