3 ms·

Jordan Peterson talks about this a lot; that these traits are the best predictors of success in the workplace. He also states that he doesn't know whether "femi

Jordan Peterson talks about this a lot; that these traits are the best predictors of success in the workplace. He also states that he doesn't know whether "feminine" traits would work as well. Not enough data. So how do you test it? You could re-organize a company around "feminine" traits but the only data we have right now would indicate that you'd lose out to competition. So unless a billionaire with deep pockets would like to run a social experiment it is not going to happen. Governmental fiat? That's partially what is happening in some places. I mean specifically more women in the boardroom (e.g. EU rules mandating at least 30% women). But then those women that made it turned out to make same decisions as men (no, your female boss is not less likely to fire you). What about survival of the fittest? If "feminine" traits are of any advantage then some company would successfully evolve to benefit from it. That didn't happen. I think the problem lies in what success means. Public companies are forced to return value to shareholders. I remember reading an article about Etsy. They seem to have had "feminine" traits at the core of the company culture and later on the culture was changed top-down in the name of chasing corporate profits. But as a listed company what choice do they have? If they don't chase profits they'd get sued by shareholders or some activist investor will mount an attack. You can't leave money on the table, whether you're a man or a woman.

nappadbz 9y ago
> What about survival of the fittest? If "feminine" traits are of any advantage then some company would successfully evolve to benefit from it. That didn't happen. Implying that success is not in part due to luck and that they are we at evolutionary ends? We still evolve. Also survival of the fittest is hilarious considering the oligarchy and how difficult it is to get into certain spaces without starting capital. Starting capital that is harder (on average) for women to come by. Also, women gaining leadership roles and being respected in the workplace is still a relatively young movement. Males have been dominant for thousands of years -- let's give women a few more decades before evaluating their impact? In addition, citing Peterson without mentioning the context that he is a classical liberal who relies on pseudo-science and has a target audience of (white) males is disingenuous. He has monetary incentive to push a narrative that the world of male-dominated wealth as being ideal. Let us not forget that he uses lobsters as proof of hierarchical societies being inevitable and does not understand biology. Finally, he also believes that women should not wear makeup in the workplace (a feminine trait by his understanding -- increasing female sexuality) and still be able to complain about sexual harassment. That is, Jordan B. Peterson actively believes that feminine traits should be discouraged.
TheCoelacanth 9y ago
> If they don't chase profits they'd get sued by shareholders or some activist investor will mount an attack. You can't leave money on the table, whether you're a man or a woman. There is no objectively best profit maximizing strategy for a company to pursue. Courts give management wide latitude to exercise their own judgement about how to run a company. The only way that they will intervene on behalf of shareholders is when management can be proven to have acted in bad faith. CEOs are chosen not because they are objectively the best at maximizing profits but because they have traits that investors believe make for a good CEO. If investors are choosing masculine CEOs it's not necessarily because masculine CEOs are better at producing profits, it's because investors perceive them as being better at producing profits. Survival of the fittest doesn't mean that the optimal strategy always wins out. If you believe that then you would have to believe that every species of life is perfect.
- GreaterFool 9y ago
  Please read the story of Etsy: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/business/etsy-josh-silverman.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/business/etsy-josh-silver... > There is no objectively best profit maximizing strategy for a company to pursue. There's always pressure to cut costs and cutting costs is always rough. CEO compensation is usually tied to share price. So they work to maximize the share price. I wish there were more companies with a "mission" beyond $$$ but it is hard to do. You have to stay private, I suppose. Do you have any data at all to back your claims about how CEOs are chosen?

nappadbz 9y ago

> What about survival of the fittest? If "feminine" traits are of any advantage then some company would successfully evolve to benefit from it. That didn't happen. Implying that success is not in part due to luck and that they are we at evolutionary ends? We still evolve. Also survival of the fittest is hilarious considering the oligarchy and how difficult it is to get into certain spaces without starting capital. Starting capital that is harder (on average) for women to come by. Also, women gaining leadership roles and being respected in the workplace is still a relatively young movement. Males have been dominant for thousands of years -- let's give women a few more decades before evaluating their impact? In addition, citing Peterson without mentioning the context that he is a classical liberal who relies on pseudo-science and has a target audience of (white) males is disingenuous. He has monetary incentive to push a narrative that the world of male-dominated wealth as being ideal. Let us not forget that he uses lobsters as proof of hierarchical societies being inevitable and does not understand biology. Finally, he also believes that women should not wear makeup in the workplace (a feminine trait by his understanding -- increasing female sexuality) and still be able to complain about sexual harassment. That is, Jordan B. Peterson actively believes that feminine traits should be discouraged.

TheCoelacanth 9y ago

> If they don't chase profits they'd get sued by shareholders or some activist investor will mount an attack. You can't leave money on the table, whether you're a man or a woman. There is no objectively best profit maximizing strategy for a company to pursue. Courts give management wide latitude to exercise their own judgement about how to run a company. The only way that they will intervene on behalf of shareholders is when management can be proven to have acted in bad faith. CEOs are chosen not because they are objectively the best at maximizing profits but because they have traits that investors believe make for a good CEO. If investors are choosing masculine CEOs it's not necessarily because masculine CEOs are better at producing profits, it's because investors perceive them as being better at producing profits. Survival of the fittest doesn't mean that the optimal strategy always wins out. If you believe that then you would have to believe that every species of life is perfect.

GreaterFool 9y ago
Please read the story of Etsy: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/business/etsy-josh-silverman.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/business/etsy-josh-silver... > There is no objectively best profit maximizing strategy for a company to pursue. There's always pressure to cut costs and cutting costs is always rough. CEO compensation is usually tied to share price. So they work to maximize the share price. I wish there were more companies with a "mission" beyond $$$ but it is hard to do. You have to stay private, I suppose. Do you have any data at all to back your claims about how CEOs are chosen?