????本周的《紐約客》（New Yorker）刊登了有關(guān)謝麗爾?桑德伯格的特寫文章。謝麗爾有多個頭銜。作為社交網(wǎng)站Facebook的首席運營官，她協(xié)助首席執(zhí)行官馬克?扎克伯格將一個初創(chuàng)業(yè)務(wù)打造成一個盈利可觀的企業(yè)?，F(xiàn)年41歲的桑德伯格還是《財富》雜志年度“最具影響力女性”榜單（Fortune's annual Most Powerful Women list）上一顆迅速升起的新星。桑德伯格曾相繼在世界銀行（the World Bank）、麥肯錫(McKinsey & Co. )、美國財政部（the U.S. Treasury）、谷歌(GOOG)和Facebook就職。隨著她開始與公眾分享自己的職業(yè)生涯經(jīng)歷，她成為了那些堅信自己能與男性做同樣事情的年輕女性心中的最佳榜樣。

????但桑德伯格并非總是對自己的影響力感到自如，正如該特寫作者肯?奧萊塔在文章中所寫道的：

????桑德伯格表示，當(dāng)《財富》雜志資深主筆帕特里謝?賽勒在2005年邀請她參加該雜志舉辦的匯集數(shù)百女性的年度盛事“最具影響力女性峰會”（Most Powerful Women Summit）時，她的反應(yīng)是一聲驚嘆——“??！”。桑德伯格出席了峰會，但她認為該稱號讓她覺得難為情，不愿意將此寫在她和公司同事共享的網(wǎng)絡(luò)日歷上。她表示，賽樂之后曾責(zé)備她過于靦腆。賽樂回憶道：“我告訴她，自我們于1998年開始評選“最具影響力女性”以來，在該榜單上的大部分女性，包括卡莉?菲奧莉娜、梅格?惠特曼和奧普拉?溫弗瑞等等，都在起初聽聞這個詞后都不太適應(yīng)，但后來都逐漸改變立場，她也應(yīng)該這樣。擁有個人的影響力有什么不好嗎？”

????奧萊塔的特寫文章的主線是，桑德伯格正學(xué)會接受自己的影響力。由于我曾撰寫過有關(guān)桑德伯格和其他女性領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人的文章，我對這一思路有諸多想法。在桑德伯格告訴奧萊塔有關(guān)“??！”一事后，奧萊塔通過電子郵件詢問我是否真的曾“斥責(zé)”她不要像個小女孩一樣表現(xiàn)扭捏時，我答復(fù)如下：

????肯—當(dāng)我們于1998年推出《財富》雜志的“最具影響力女性”榜單并于隨后一年推出“最具影響力女性峰會”時，美國的大部分頂尖商界女性都不愿意被稱為“具有影響力”。奧普拉告訴我，她害怕這個詞的一部分原因是，她認為宣稱自己具有影響力會將她與大眾隔離開來?？ɡ?菲奧莉娜在榜單推出第一年就登上《財富》封面，當(dāng)時她還在朗訊(ALU)就職，并且在電信業(yè)界之外默默無聞。此后，我每年詢問她有關(guān)影響力的問題時，她為難得直咬牙。有一次她這樣回答我“我的能力是我的優(yōu)點，但也可能是一個缺點”。

????卡莉很快發(fā)現(xiàn)，炫耀自身影響力的女性遭遇的逆反作用可能會十分強烈。當(dāng)時謝麗爾在谷歌時羞于對大家承認自己的影響力，不愿意將“最具影響力女性”寫在共享日歷上時，我認為，這是她在對頂尖女性受到的評判比男性更為嚴苛的現(xiàn)實作出的反應(yīng)。女性的能力也可能是她們的“缺點”。我認為，像謝麗爾這么具有戰(zhàn)略性的人肯定很清楚，她必須在承認自己“具有影響力”之前先證明自己的價值。

????我曾就此事與她聯(lián)系，并且正如你所言，可能曾“斥責(zé)”過她，因為我在當(dāng)時認為她是一個理想的人選，并且可以成為年輕女性和眾多商界女性的良好榜樣。我很清晰得記得那個時刻。謝麗爾和我于某天接近傍晚時分在位于第八大道50街的餐廳Thalia首次見面。我們一邊喝著蘇打水，一邊討論了谷歌的組織結(jié)構(gòu)和盈利模式(她隨手在紙上涂寫，寥寥數(shù)語就對所有問題給出了精辟的解釋)。我們還談到了《財富》的“最具影響力女性峰會”，當(dāng)時她打算第一次參與這次活動。

????當(dāng)她告訴我她無法將此事寫在日歷上，原因是谷歌高級管理人員對同事公開日歷，而“具影響力”一詞令人反感...甚至可能帶來不好的影響時，我覺得十分錯愕的和好笑。我告訴她，自我們于1998年開始評選“最具影響力女性”以來，在該榜單上的大部分女性，包括卡莉?菲奧莉娜、梅格?惠特曼和奧普拉?溫弗瑞等等，都在起初聽聞這個詞后都有些心理障礙，但后來逐漸想通了，她也應(yīng)該這樣。假如你以正確的途徑使用影響力，那么擁有個人的影響力或是說你具有權(quán)力又有什么問題？

????This week's New Yorker includes a profile of Sheryl Sandberg, who is many things. She is the Facebook COO who is helping Mark Zuckerberg turn his startup into a very profitable business. She is, at 41, one of the fastest-rising stars on Fortune's annual Most Powerful Women list. And as she has taken to talking publicly about her career--from the World Bank to McKinsey & Co. to the U.S. Treasury to Google (GOOG) to Facebook--Sanberg has become the top role model for young women who refuse to believe they can't do everything a guy can.

????But Sandberg didn't always take comfort in her clout, as author Ken Auletta writes in the story:

????Sandberg says that she had an "Aha!" moment in 2005, when Pattie Sellers, an editor at large at Fortune, invited her to the magazine's Most Powerful Women Summit, an annual gathering of several hundred women. Sandberg attended, but she thought the title was embarrassing, and refused to list it on the Web-based calendar that she shared with her colleagues. She says that Sellers later chided her for being timid. Sellers recalls, "I told her that most of the women on the Most Powerful Women list—Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, Oprah, and many others—had a hangup about the word when we started ranking them in 1998, but they've come around, and she should, too. What's wrong with owning your power?"

????This thread of Auletta's profile--Sandberg learning to embrace her power--is one that I've thought plenty about as I've written about her and other women leaders. After Sandberg told Auletta about that "aha!" moment and he emailed me to ask if I actually did "shame" her to stop acting like a girl, here's what I replied:

????Ken--When we started MPWomen in the magazine in 1998 and the MPW Summit the year after, most all of America's top businesswomen loathed being called "powerful." Oprah told me she feared the word--partly because she thought declaring herself powerful separated her from real people. Carly Fiorina--who we put on the cover of Fortune that first year when she was at Lucent (ALU) and practically unknown outside telecom--gritted her teeth every year after when I asked her about power. One time she answered me this way: "My strength is my strength, but it also can be a weakness."

????The backlash against women who flaunt their power can be fierce, as Carly learned quickly. When Sheryl shied from publicly embracing her power--at Google, by not putting Most Powerful Women on the shared calendar--she was, I think, reacting to that reality that top women are judged more harshly than men. That strength can be a "weakness" for women. As strategic as Sheryl is, I think she knew she had to prove her worth before calling herself powerful.

????I called her on it--and as you say, maybe I "shamed" her--because I saw then that she is the real deal and could be a great role model for young women and businesswomen in general. I so remember this moment. Sheryl and I were meeting for the first time, late afternoon at Thalia, a restaurant at 50th and 8th Ave.. Over sparkling water, we talked about Google's org structure and how it makes money (she brilliantly explained it all, scribbling on scraps of paper) and the Fortune Most Powerful Women Summit, which she was planning to attend for the first time.

????I was stunned and amused when she told me that she can't list the event on the calendar--because Google execs share their calendar and the word "powerful" is a turnoff...maybe even toxic? I told her that most of the women on the MPWomen list--Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, Oprah, and many others--had a hangup about the word when we started ranking them in 1998, but they've come around, and she should too: What's wrong with owning your power--saying you're powerful--if you use power in a good way?