Forgetting Eve
by Candice Watters on 05/04/2009 at 10:17 AM
Boston.com's "The Female Advantage" suggests an unconventional strategy for companies who want to thrive in these uncertain economic times. Their thesis: "put more women in charge."
"Several studies have linked greater gender diversity in senior posts with financial success," they report. They're not sure why more women in leadership leads to higher profits, suggesting a range of possibilities. In an effort to further promote the benefits, they speculate that more women leaders could result in less corporate crime:
Some analysts even suggest that women might have been able to temper the excesses that led to the current financial crisis. The culprits, one can't help but notice, were overwhelmingly male. More women at the table, some speculate, might have served as a prudent counterweight to reckless, testosterone-addled men.
I'm all for integrity in the workplace. I just don't believe one gender is inherently better -- less sinful -- than the other. It's not sex, that informs good decisions, it's sanctification.
Apparently the authors of this article, and believers in the "women are by nature better than men" school of thought, have never read Genesis or Romans.
1. DannieA said the following at 10:36 AM on May 4:
Well I don't think it's that women are inherently better than men, I think that maybe because men and women are wired differently, women aren't as apt to be "all about the money" maybe?
Men are usually hardwired to be the breadwinners, and to bring home the money, so of course when it comes to business, sometimes they are craftier, whereas women usually aren't "all about the money" and can look at things objectively? IDK
(this is a generalization of differences and I am NOT saying that women are not brutal as well in the workforce especially business just throwing an idea out there)
2. obewan said the following at 10:39 AM on May 4:
I would think it is more related to women being frugal.
Women have the "nesting instinct" and are good at managing budgets. They love to shop around for bargains too...LOL
3. Tami said the following at 11:28 AM on May 4:
I agree with DannieA and obewan -- the idea may have less to do with women being "better" or inherently more virtuous, and more to do with the way women handle money, as well as the way they view teamwork and organizations.
4. Jo said the following at 11:40 AM on May 4:
I would've thought you could more easily take the Boston.com article as supportive of the idea that men and women have different qualities. Which is something Boundless agrees with! I agree with #1 and #2 that it's not saying women are inherently better, just that they are different and therefore don't (generally) share the particular flaws that possibly led to the economic crisis. They're not suggesting that it should be ALL women at the top - presumably that would lead to a whole different set of issues!
5. EKB said the following at 11:45 AM on May 4:
I read the article carefully, and I don't think it implied that women are inherently better than men. Rather, it seemed to point out that companies without very many women in leadership are hurt by missing out on some of women's unique strengths. This is actually completely in line with what many Christians believe, that men and women are equal but have different strengths and weaknesses. I think the article is very fair, and it doesn't rush to conclusions.
6. SJ said the following at 11:46 AM on May 4:
I tend to dismiss calls that somehow women are better at a or b since that inherently implies that they are also weaker at x or y. Such sweeping generalizations are going to get you in trouble especially since you have plenty of outliers on both sides.
Instead, what I suspect we see here is that these companies are benefiting because they are tapping their entire labor pool for potential managers instead of limiting themselves to a specific gender, race, etc. So in this specific case, they double the number of people they're drawing future leaders from and thus have a better chance of finding the high quality people required for these positions. That's my theory as to why, according to the article, companies that simply promote women for the sake of putting women into leadership don't do as well.
7. BDB said the following at 11:48 AM on May 4:
Well, if you accept the thesis that men ought to take risks, what these guys were doing was inherently VERY risky. A lot of us could see the risk and stayed away from it - we could tell it was a bubble.
The size of this bubble has a lot to do with the mathematical models used to evaluate these risks. The models were wrong. I knew that my math skills were not adequate to fully evaluate the models accuracy, so I stayed away from derivatives and collateralized debt obligations.
I can't remember any cases of women making billion-dollar mistakes through risky trading schemes. But plenty of women engage in embezzlement and othe kinds of theft. Those things might cause a company to fail, but they aren't as bit as the systemic risks created by bad risk modelling.
But it is true - the men primarily responsible for this meltdown - Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd - are both male.
8. Erica said the following at 1:02 PM on May 4:
Because of child bearing and rearing a woman is quick to sense danger. For those same reasons she pay attention to every details and don't run risk. She doesn't leave creeping baby sleeping on a bed and go out to do a task. She puts him in a crib with rails. Whenever the baby awaked , he is protected from failing and hurting.
Very few woman in managerial position would run the risk that these men run. A women in a leader position pays attention to everything that is said and done. Margaret Thatcher has to resign because of poll tax. Poll tax is a tax charged on the number of persons in a house. So if ten persons live under a roof, a tax is charged for each of those ten persons. Look what she was doing, looking into each house and counting the persons in there. A man would just tax gas, food stuff, raised property tax.
We used to have a female prime minister in Jamaica. One of the frequent comments made about her was why does she pays attention so much things. A lot of men were brought before courts for having sex with underage girls. The law was on the book for years and it was the first thing I remember so many men being persecuted for it. A man can be now charged for raping his wife Everyone said it is because she is a woman
It is not that she is better manager than a man. It is that because of her child rearing skill regarding the safety and wellbeing of her household she doesn't run certain risk. The same skill transfer to the office. For the office to be well run and for the safety of the company and people she served she doesn't run certain the risk. I don't know what credit default swap is but hearing the name I wonder why AIG trade in it. A woman intuition protects against danger.
9. Erica said the following at 1:58 PM on May 4:
I don't know what it is but the mere fact it is not protected by Insurance guideline and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Why should someone run the risk to invest in something that does have a standard to abide by.
10. Keith said the following at 3:14 PM on May 4:
It is interesting. I once asked my female friend about this, and she said the idea of a female boss scares her. She says she would rather work for a male supervisor than a female one. She says that female supervisors are too picky and insist on thing being done a certain way, even if it is not the most practical way. Male bosses are more flexible, more relaxed, and easier to work with.
11. DannieA said the following at 3:54 PM on May 4:
#10....well nature of the beast, when one has a good female supervisor, it's a great thing....when it's not...your female supervisor can become EVIL.
When a male supervisor is not good...it's not as bad....
in my own experience.
12. skp said the following at 3:59 PM on May 4:
Keith,
I agree. In general females tend to micromanage.
13. godmadescience said the following at 4:28 PM on May 4:
What BDB says is very telling. The current financial crisis was caused by the formation of bubbles and poor mathematical modeling, not by risk-taking.
The fact that so many people took these risks and _consistently_ made money for so many years and then suddenly lost it all points to the mispricings caused by loose credit and the Federal Reserve, not by risk-taking in and of itself.
Without derivatives and risk-taking, our financial markets would collapse. Derivatives like options and futures are a form of insurance, a means of transferring risk from one party to another.
For example, a gold mine could enter a contract in the futures market to sell gold at a fixed price (say $900/oz.) to a buyer with the sale to take place six months in the future. If the price of gold goes down to $800, the mine still makes its profit, and the buyer loses money because he is forced to buy gold at $900. If gold goes up to $1000, the mine has lost an opportunity to make more money than it would have, but the buyer can buy gold at $900 and immediately re-sell it at the market price of $1000.
The fact that the buyer of the contract took this risk makes it possible for the mine to expand its operations, hiring more people and buying more equipment, without the risk of going bankrupt.
Without risk-taking in the derivatives markets, our economy would shrink dramatically. Imagine what would happen if you could no longer buy health, property, or life insurance because no one was willing to take the necessary risks.
The problem, again, is the mispricings created by the Federal Reserve and loose credit. Women would have done better in the past few years managing companies because we are looking at a set of data that is skewed by recent monetary policy.
14. godmadescience said the following at 4:44 PM on May 4:
Amending my last comment: That is as far as risk-taking is concerned. There are other factors that I haven't commented on above.
15. Kate said the following at 4:47 PM on May 4:
This is exactly why companies need both men and women in various positions. I think most people can admit that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses, but not always. I think it would be wise for companies to have women and men working together, so they get the best of both worlds.
16. beatrice81 said the following at 6:52 PM on May 4:
It's amusing to me how Candice will claim that women are better at things than men are when the subject is housewifey or domestic things, but she'll insist that there is no difference between the genders when there's actual data that companies do better with more women in leadership. It seems that Candice believes that women are only good at things that are low in prestige, compensation and authority.
And I see I'm not the only one who has noticed this.
17. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 7:25 PM on May 4:
Many feminists claim, "the average wage of women is only 77% of the average male wage", and the Hopeychanger-In-Chief has dutifully regurgitated this half-truth. Of course, if this were the whole truth, then why would any employer hire men instead of saving 23% in wage bills?
To put this into perspective:
Kathryn Jean Lopez: You write that "The Jobs Rated Almanac reveals that twenty-three of the twenty-five jobs rated as the worst are over 90 percent male." I bet a man wrote that.
Kate O'Beirne (author of Women Who Make the World Worse): That's just one of the many uncomfortable facts that feminists ignore in order to make their dishonest claims. Men make up 54 percent of the workforce, but account for 92 percent of job-related deaths. Jobs that are flexible, fulfilling, and safe (so typically favored by women) pay less. Feminists hate it when that happens.
18. pass the ammunition said the following at 10:34 PM on May 4:
I just love gender essentialism.
19. Ted Slater said the following at 11:03 PM on May 4:
beatrice81 (#16) -- Your comment implies that you have a low esteem for motherhood. Perhaps some day you will come to give mothers the respect they rightly deserve. Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying?
20. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 11:35 PM on May 4:
I wouldn't be at all surprised that capable women at the top would benefit a company. But this should be up to the company, not Government, to decide.
BTW, ever notice how feminists claim that gender differences are conditioned by society, but homosexuals are born that way?
21. Jethro said the following at 3:42 AM on May 5:
Dr Sarfati (#20),
Ever notice the way Christians claim that behavioral gender differences are genetic but homosexual ones are not?
22. Mike Theemling said the following at 4:17 AM on May 5:
I read the article and agree that it's not making a definitive statement about the benefits of women. It's just acknowledging an observation and giving some theories about why that is (the article up front said correlation != causation and that a woman in a CEO position has no statistically positive effect from male CEOs).
I think it's unhelpful and possibly dangerous to make such sweeping generalizations about women regarding leadership styles. Everyone can cite their own personal stories, but anecdotal evidence alone isn't sufficient to warrant such. I've known of female managers who were very micromanagement-orientated, and likewise those who were very laissez-faire. And I've known male supervisors who were the same in both categories.
I do agree that men tend to engage in more risk-taking activities than women (most obvious in the recreational realm [extreme sports, etc]), but that can work for or against a company. In the past some companies made bold, radical decisions which ended up turning the company around. IBM for example during the 90's. Likewise, playing it safe or keeping the status quo doomed GM.
One point the article brought up which I do agree with is that since women do make up a significant chunk of consumer spending, women providing insight can contribute to appealing to that base. I doubt many would disagree that women are harder to "figure out" than men. Getting men to stop and look at an advertisement is extremely easy: just show a beautiful woman. That strategy may not work for all women though.
Rather than focusing on "just being a woman" I believe it's more beneficial to look for other traits: Good work ethic, ability to work well in a team environment, etc. And yes, if you had to make a judgement call on which gender is "better" at these women do perform higher academically and they are more relational than men. But there are enough counterexamples (both of men who excel and women who do not) to reveal that a simplistic tactic of "hire more women and our company's bottom line will increase" is dubious.
23. Louise from Chicago said the following at 6:58 AM on May 5:
Comment 16, it appears that that is Candice's opinion.
But...so what?
It's just someone's opinion!
24. Sarah P. said the following at 8:54 AM on May 5:
#s 10-12: I want to note that the attention to what seems like "unnecessary" detail, which can often frustrate people who want to dive in and accomplish things, could be exactly what gives these women an edge in management positions. It's like rock climbing. While novice men tend to bull ahead with their greater upper body strength, novice women dig in and learn proper lower body control -- because they must.
Building the foundation for an organization takes frustrating amounts of time, patience, and attention to detail. You have to juggle a million different areas at once. I can see how a woman would be exceptionally good at this (and why so many male execs need exceptionally good personal assistants).
I myself am seeking to learn and grow in management as a young professional, trying to learn how to direct and keep in line without micro-managing. I think these skills will transfer to managing a family excellently some day, particularly to raising sons who are manly instead of wimpy and "womanly."
25. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 9:16 AM on May 5:
Jethro: ever noticed that men and women really are biologically different, while homosexuals are not biologically different from heterosexuals of the same sex (self-serving "gay gene" pseudoscience ignored)?
26. Tif said the following at 1:02 PM on May 5:
I think beatrice81 has an excellent point. I'm confused at what exactly Eve has to do with whether or not women can bring certain gifts to corporate leadership that men (usually) cannot...because Eve sinned, women are fundamentally less trustworthy or reliable or responsible than men? Are you saying that women must submit to men out of some punishment for our forebear's sin and not because God designed us that way?
And wouldn't Candice and Boundless say that there ARE certain things women are better at than men and vice versa? So why can't this be one of them? Or am I missing the point?
27. EKB said the following at 5:31 PM on May 5:
Not to get too off topic, but:
godmadescience,
I agree with you that the financial collapse wasn't caused entirely by risk takers. However, I think your analysis of the derivatives market is oversimplified. Derivatives can actually act to decrease risk, such as for the gold company in your example. However, some irresponsible traders make enormous bets and essentially gamble with them. For an extreme example, read the story of Nick Leeson, the rogue trader who singlehandedly bankrupted Britain's oldest investment bank. Incentives are often out of line in finance, and it can't be denied that the culture of greed and excessive risk taking contributed to the mess we're in. It is easy to "consistently" make money when prices are only going up! For an interesting read on the mass-psychology of bubbles, read "A Short History of Financial Euphoria." As Galbraith so eloquently puts it, "Financial genius is before the fall."
28. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:41 PM on May 5:
Speaking of sex differences, saying that marriage = one man and one woman (as Obama said but doesn't mean so he's safe) can cost a Christian not only her Miss America title, as Carrie Prejean found to her cost. Now the Gay activists are trying to strip her Miss California title. Yet the bigoted homosexual judge said the foulest things about her, and was still supported by the organizers and the Leftmedia.
When are are neo-Chamberlainite church leaders going to wake up, and realize that appeasement of the homosexual lobby won't be enough: they want to punish Christian beliefs too.
29. Jethro said the following at 4:35 PM on May 6:
Dr Sarfati,
Ever noticed that not every biological difference between people manifests in outward physical characteristics?
The 'gay gene' argument is an interesting one and shows the fundamental difference between us. You are willing to conclude solely on the basis of your dogmatic beliefs that no 'gay gene' exists, ergo, you conclude any and all research into it is pointless. I am willing to say that I don't know whether a 'gay gene' exists or not and I will happily sit back and let science decide. You see, I am rational and follow the evidence.
...
30. Jeremy said the following at 8:45 PM on May 6:
Jonathan Sarfati (#28) -- "Speaking of sex differences, saying that marriage = one man and one woman (as Obama said but doesn't mean so he's safe) can cost a Christian not only her Miss America title, as Carrie Prejean found to her cost. Now the Gay activists are trying to strip her Miss California title."
Do you even read the links you post? There is an investigation into whether doing an unauthorized commercial and posing semi-nude as a 17-year-old violated her pageant contract. That has nothing to do with her views on gay marriage (other than the tangential fact that the commercial in question dealt with that topic). Not everything is a vast left-wing conspiracy.
31. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 9:59 PM on May 7:
Now the gay lobby is digging up dirt on Prejean's parents' divorce when she was 13! Then of course there are all the jokes [sensu latissimo] about female body parts. Of course feminists would be up in arms (and rightly so) if this sort of nastiness was directed to a leftist woman. But in this case, feminists applauded.
There doesn't have to be a leftist "conspiracy", just extreme nastiness by some lefty public figures, without a whimper of protest.
32. Jethro said the following at 11:05 PM on May 7:
Dr Sarfati,
Oh my, those on the left must be taking a leaf out of the book of those on the right. Interesting how awful muck-raking and slander is when the shoe is on the other foot.
33. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 12:46 AM on May 8:
Jethro (#32): the Left have always been the leaders in hypocritical muckraking. Just look at the filthy lies over SCOTUS pick Robert Bork, the "high tech lynching" of Clarence Thomas, and the lesser pick Charles Pickering (attacked as a racist despite his staunch opposition to the KKK at personal risk), compared to the gentleness of the GOP (too gentle) towards leftist activist judges John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
You won't find TV hosts or contest judges who stoop so viciously against leftists. And where where the feminists when blatantly misogynist remarks were made.
In any case, since when do two wrongs make a right? Jethro can't hide his malice towards Christians.
34. Jethro said the following at 12:22 AM on May 9:
Dr Sarfati (#33),
First, you will note I referred to 'the right'. You then turned this into 'malice against Christians'. It's interesting that while I deliberately did not refer to Christians, you did. Your conflation of the two is quite telling.
Anyway, you are clearly ignorant to the point of being laughable. Have you never seen, heard or watched Anne Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Newt Gingrich etc with their fallacious and vicious attacks against anyone and everyone on the left?
I rest my case.
35. godmadescience said the following at 3:17 PM on May 12:
EKB, thanks for writing. I agree that a crowd mentality has much to do with the actual mechanics of how bubbles form. The fundamental problems behind a bubble itself (the reasons it forms, not the specific path it takes while being formed) are not caused by risk-taking and a crowd mentality, but by monetary policy. We have the same risk-takers and crowd mentality today as we did five years ago, but the risk-takers no longer have any borrowing power with which to make their gambles.
The easy availability of credit made it difficult for investors to make money using "conservative" investments. For example, interest rates on mortages went down to historic lows, and it was difficult for lenders to make money. They were paying interest on deposits and needed to put the money somewhere, so they made subprime loans and created a network of derivatives which appeared to protect their positions but really didn't. These new forms of derivatives, which did not have the safety of listed options and futures, exploded because of loose credit.
Jim Rogers is an example of someone who makes a lot of money by using Federal Reserve monetary policy as a tool for predicting prices (and shorting bubbles).
Sorry - I should have been clearer about what I meant. :)
36. godmadescience said the following at 11:40 PM on May 15:
I found a good description about the formation of bubbles from an interview of Marc Faber:
...
We always had bubbles and investment mania in the world. Even in the 19th century, under the gold standard, from time-to-time investment manias and bubbles developed in railroads and in canals and in real estate, just to name a few. Under a fixed monetary, or gold, standard, where the quantity of money cannot be increased indefinitely; there is a natural limit to the scale of the crisis. Usually when there's a boom in one sector of the economy, you have some kind of deflation somewhere else; that was also the case in the 1970's. We had a boom in commodities, but bond prices collapsed.
What Mr. Greenspan and Mr. Bernanke have achieved is historically quite unique. They have managed to create a bubble in everything, everywhere in the world: in real estate, equities, commodities, art, worthless collectibles; even bond prices continued to rise as interest rates fell due to the loose monetary policy. Since 2007 and 2008, everything has collapsed.
...
http://marcfaberblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/bubbles-and-investment-manias.html