????我早已預料到讀者會有怎樣的不滿。比如，從上周以來收到的幾條有代表性的Twitter留言：“#《財富》40(#Fortune40)中的女性為什么這么少？”“我們需要更多女性上榜。”“真令人震驚……不到一半？醒醒吧。”

????《財富》40位40歲以下的商界精英（Fortune 40 Under 40）榜單由我領導的團隊負責，我們會每年一次評選出40歲以下最具影響力的商界精英。從榜單推出以來，上榜的女性數量，尤其是女性不足的問題，一直是熱門話題。

????我很高興地告訴大家，現在這已經不是問題了。今年的榜單上，有39歲的雅虎（Yahoo）CEO梅麗莎?梅耶，出任這項職位時，她是最年輕的《財富》500強公司（Fortune 500）領導人；英國水務公司Severn Trent的CEO奧利維亞?加菲爾德，也是富時100指數公司（FTSE 100）僅有的五位女性CEO之一（包括所有年齡段）；Twitter公司首席法律顧問維杰亞?加德，是該公司管理團隊中唯一的女性；以及伊莉莎白?霍爾姆斯，她的血液診斷初創公司Theranos的市值已經達到90億美元。

????但今年上榜的女性只有15位。40個人只有15位女性，這遠談不上平等。這也是讀者不滿的原因。

????當然，我們承認：我們需要更多女性上榜。我們當然希望榜單中有一半是女性。但榜單中女性人數的不足，在事實上反映了當前的現狀。而且，我意識到，這種不足也印證了關于商界女性的一條不言自明的真理。對于40歲以下的女性，商業成就（主要是收入、資金、公司規模）能與同齡男性相媲美的女性候選人，遠遠低于我們的期望。但再看看40至44歲的女性，你會發現女性數量激增，而且她們擔任的職位更高。所以，我認為，商界女性的黃金年齡是40-44歲。

????在進行40位40歲以下商業精英榜單調查過程中，我們經常遇到一些新人，我們認為她肯定能夠上榜，結果卻發現她超過了榜單的門檻，已經40歲或41歲，這樣的情況數不勝數。例如今年，我們聽說一家大型銀行有一位年輕的部門CEO，這令我們興奮不已。在辦公室里，大家都興高采烈，能為這個榜單找到擔任高層職位的新人，就像找到圣杯一樣，后來我們發現，她在幾個月前剛剛過了40歲生日。在參與榜單評選工作的多年間，我曾多次遭遇類似的失望經歷，以至于我找了個詞來形容它：“四十歡悅”，這是對40位40歲以下商界精英榜單的幸災樂禍。對于過了40歲的精英女性，我們為她們的成功感到高興；我們只是希望她們依舊能符合評選資格。

????The complaints each year are by now predictable. A few sample tweets since last week: “Why so few women on the #Fortune40?” “We need more women on this list.” “Astounding… Less than half? Wake up.”

????I oversee the team that puts together the Fortune 40 Under 40 list, our once-a-year ranking of the most influential people in business under age 40 (head here to check out this year’s list). And for as long as we’ve been doing it, the topic of the number of women on the list—specifically, the lack thereof—has been an issue.

????I’m happy to report that it’s become less of an issue. This year we have impressive women like Marissa Mayer, the 39-year-old CEO of Yahoo YHOO -3.08% who became the youngest person to head a Fortune 500 company the year she stepped in; Olivia Garfield, CEO of UK water company Severn Trent and one of five women CEOs—of any age—on the FTSE 100; VijayaGadde, general counsel of Twitter TWTR -3.79% and the only woman on the executive team; and Elizabeth Holmes, whose blood-diagnostic startup Theranos is valued at $9 billion. (Read our June cover story on Holmes, “This CEO is out for blood.”)

????But there are only 15 women on the list. 15 out of 40 is not parity—far from it. And that’s where the complaints come in.

????Of course we agree: we need more women on this list. And we’d love to have half of the 40 be women. But the deficit on our list reflects the deficit in reality. It also reflects a truism about women in business I’ve come to realize. When it comes to women under 40, the universe of candidates whose business achievements (typically that’s revenue, funding, size or scale of company) match men of the same age group is much smaller than we’d like it to be. But when you look at women between 40 and 44, the universe of powerful women explodes in number — and their roles are much bigger. The sweet spot for women in business, I would argue, is ages 40 to 44.

????I can’t even count the number of times we’ve come across a new name during the 40 Under 40 research process who we think is a shoe-in for the list only to discover she’s just missed the cutoff and is actually 40 or 41. This year, to cite just one example, we were thrilled to learn about a young divisional CEO at a major bank. We were briefly elated in the office—discovering new people in very big jobs is the holy grail for this list—until we learned she’d turned 40 just months prior. This kind of disappointment has happened to me so many times over the years that I have a word for it: fortyfreude; it’sschadenfreude, of the 40 under 40 variety. We’re so happy for their success; we only wish they were still eligible.