4 ms·

It's possible there is two competing market forces: 1. women on corporate boards are a competitive advantage for reasons stated above. 2. women on corporate bo

It's possible there is two competing market forces: 1. women on corporate boards are a competitive advantage for reasons stated above. 2. women on corporate boards are a competitive dis-advantage because of social factors based around the cultural idea that women are not normally on boards. If that's the case, then the market won't unlock the advantages of the first factor unless something happens to disrupt the second factor. I honestly don't know how anyone can believe the market will find the optimal outcome. At best it finds an optimal outcome within constraints put on it by the confused, reactionary, panicky, racist, sexist, bigoted people who are the things actually acting out "the market".

DocTomoe 4y ago
Wouldn't it be pretty easy to confirm or falsify the theory then? See how companies perform with more diverse boards as compared to those with less diverse boards? That information is public. This study [1] seems to have inconclusive results: > We found evidence for a positive effect of women on corporate boards on both measures of company performance—ROA and PER—apart from the percentage of female executives in the case of ROA when estimated through pooled OLS. However, the outcomes of panel data fixed-effects and random-effects revealed the lack of connection between board gender diversity and ROA but a positive impact of the number and percentage of women on board on PER. [1] https://jfin-swufe.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40854-021-00265-x#Sec6 https://jfin-swufe.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40854-...
- kennywinker 4y ago
  Those studies didn’t happen in a vacuum. Imagine your company loses out on some big contract because when the some-women board shows up the all-men board at the other company’s unexamined prejudices kick in and they “just have a bad feeling about that company”. Or maybe it’s that the male faction of the board undervalues the female board members input and it’s functionally like having a smaller board. Those are kinda cartoonish examples of what I’m talking about when I say “cultural forces” - there may be all kinds of hard to quantify hard to control for effects at work. But if those effects would go away if the cultural stereotypes and biases went away, then maybe a law like that would push a skewed system towards one that provides equal opportunity for everyone
  - DocTomoe 4y ago
    To be fair, that sounds a bit like a fallacy ... if a diverse board leads to comparatively better outcomes, it's the fact that they were diverse, but if it doesn't, it's the fault of everyone not trusting the female-identifying board members enough? If you're bringing up a claim or a hypothesis in a discussion, you need to allow for the claim to be falsifiable.
    - kennywinker 4y ago
      I'm not making a claim. I'm describing a potential mechanism. The start of this thread was a question like "if women make boards better, why doesn't the market put them in those seats", so I was describing the type of system that could be at play - i.e. cultural inertia counteracting the benefits. There is, I believe, plenty of evidence in the literature of cultural factors like stereotypes, preconceptions, and prejudices having a very real impact on group performance. But that's not a specific claim about WHICH factors are at play in this circumstance. You posted a study that seems to show no impact when adding women to boards, so I was pointing out how a study that doesn't control for those kinds of cultural inertia factors can't say anything about the existence or non-existence of those factors. As for the specific example "if a diverse board leads to comparatively better outcomes, it's the fact that they were diverse, but if it doesn't, it's the fault of everyone not trusting the female-identifying board members enough" which you describe as an un-falsifiable claim, but it's not. Something as simple as an analysis of meeting calendars or emails on diverse and non-diverse boards might be able to determine if the communication patterns are a negative or positive influence on performance.
      - DocTomoe 4y ago
        In the end, from a corporate investor level, it's all about the bottom line. Overperformance and underperformance are well-defined terms. If there is a (positive or negative) correlation between ratio of male and female board members and performance, investors won't look twice at more obscure facets like 'meeting patterns' or 'cultural inertia'. If the original claim ("Companies perform better with more women on boards") is not provable in a comparatively simple metric like growth, and if there are indications that in fact, 'other factors' like cultural inertia currently is diametral to female success in boards, then making a law that shoehorns more women in boards is not designed to make companies perform better, but to change the assumed cultural inertia at the expense of short- to medium-term economic growth. It becomes an experiment - with the countries that do not have that kind of laws and are unlikely to implement them as a control group (looking at you, China). It only would be fair to tell that - instead of painting an unproven (and to some extend: disproven) claim a fact.
- thematrixturtle 4y ago
  Here's the SSGA Gender Diversity Index ETF vs the DJI. Alas, so far the experiment does not seem to be bearing out the hypothesis. https://finance.yahoo.com/chart/SHE#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 https://finance.yahoo.com/chart/SHE#eyJpbnRlcnZhbCI6IndlZWsi...
native_samples 4y ago
There's no actual evidence that women on boards yields better outcomes, it's just another false belief propagated by junk studies. But even if there was, would that be a good reason to act on it? This "logic" never seems to be deployed in men's favour. It's obvious that strong male firefighters will have better outcomes than female firefighters, that's why New York had to make the qualification tests easier in order to hire more women. Yet the rules were changed anyway. "I honestly don't know how anyone can believe the market will find the optimal outcome." Because of enormous amounts of history, theory and practice showing that it will? BTW the "confused, reactionary, panicky, racist, sexist, bigoted people" would appear to describe the people breaking the law in order to ban men from powerful positions on the basis of their gender, wouldn't it.
- Broken_Hippo 4y ago
  "It's obvious that strong male firefighters will have better outcomes than female firefighters, that's why New York had to make the qualification tests easier in order to hire more women." Is it obvious, though? Sure, perhaps for a few specific things, but outside of a very limited set of things... probably not. You don't need to be a strong manly man to drive a fire truck nor to use hoses. The test probably didn't actually measure what was necessary before and likely disqualified women not because it was difficult, but because it didn't actually measure how fit for the job women were (example: Measuring upper body strength alone instead of measuring how well they could carry someone out of the fire or hooking up hoses). I mean, somehow women are strong enough to be lifting patients in a nursing home but not helping folks out in a fire? I doubt this.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    > You don't need to be a strong manly man to drive a fire truck … It helps if you’re going to be doing literally anything other than just driving the apparatus. Also, why should men be relegated to the most dangerous jobs, just so that we can fill a female hiring quota by giving women the safer, less demanding jobs? > … nor to use hoses. You absolutely need to be built to man a firehose. It takes your full weight and strength to keep control of a hose with the diameters and pressures used in firefighting. With a 2.5”+ hose, it can take two full-grown men to keep control of the line with the nozzle open, especially when advancing. Nevermind hauling a charged line into a building, up stairs, etc. The weight alone is tremendous. > I mean, somehow women are strong enough to be lifting patients in a nursing home Male staffers are generally asked to do the lifting, and sometimes medical services literally call in the fire department for a lift assist. > … but not helping folks out in a fire? The structure gear alone weighs about 70 pounds. By the time you find someone in a building, you’ve been using a heavy tools, in the heat, to sound floors and search rooms rapidly in the most exhausting way possible. It’s so much more difficult than just lifting someone without all the gear on. There’s also forced entry into doors, etc, which benefits substantially from weight, leverage, and upper body strength. > I doubt this. Only because you know nothing about firefighting.

DocTomoe 4y ago

Wouldn't it be pretty easy to confirm or falsify the theory then? See how companies perform with more diverse boards as compared to those with less diverse boards? That information is public. This study [1] seems to have inconclusive results: > We found evidence for a positive effect of women on corporate boards on both measures of company performance—ROA and PER—apart from the percentage of female executives in the case of ROA when estimated through pooled OLS. However, the outcomes of panel data fixed-effects and random-effects revealed the lack of connection between board gender diversity and ROA but a positive impact of the number and percentage of women on board on PER. [1] https://jfin-swufe.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40854-021-00265-x#Sec6 https://jfin-swufe.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40854-...

kennywinker 4y ago
Those studies didn’t happen in a vacuum. Imagine your company loses out on some big contract because when the some-women board shows up the all-men board at the other company’s unexamined prejudices kick in and they “just have a bad feeling about that company”. Or maybe it’s that the male faction of the board undervalues the female board members input and it’s functionally like having a smaller board. Those are kinda cartoonish examples of what I’m talking about when I say “cultural forces” - there may be all kinds of hard to quantify hard to control for effects at work. But if those effects would go away if the cultural stereotypes and biases went away, then maybe a law like that would push a skewed system towards one that provides equal opportunity for everyone
- DocTomoe 4y ago
  To be fair, that sounds a bit like a fallacy ... if a diverse board leads to comparatively better outcomes, it's the fact that they were diverse, but if it doesn't, it's the fault of everyone not trusting the female-identifying board members enough? If you're bringing up a claim or a hypothesis in a discussion, you need to allow for the claim to be falsifiable.
  - kennywinker 4y ago
    I'm not making a claim. I'm describing a potential mechanism. The start of this thread was a question like "if women make boards better, why doesn't the market put them in those seats", so I was describing the type of system that could be at play - i.e. cultural inertia counteracting the benefits. There is, I believe, plenty of evidence in the literature of cultural factors like stereotypes, preconceptions, and prejudices having a very real impact on group performance. But that's not a specific claim about WHICH factors are at play in this circumstance. You posted a study that seems to show no impact when adding women to boards, so I was pointing out how a study that doesn't control for those kinds of cultural inertia factors can't say anything about the existence or non-existence of those factors. As for the specific example "if a diverse board leads to comparatively better outcomes, it's the fact that they were diverse, but if it doesn't, it's the fault of everyone not trusting the female-identifying board members enough" which you describe as an un-falsifiable claim, but it's not. Something as simple as an analysis of meeting calendars or emails on diverse and non-diverse boards might be able to determine if the communication patterns are a negative or positive influence on performance.
    - DocTomoe 4y ago
      In the end, from a corporate investor level, it's all about the bottom line. Overperformance and underperformance are well-defined terms. If there is a (positive or negative) correlation between ratio of male and female board members and performance, investors won't look twice at more obscure facets like 'meeting patterns' or 'cultural inertia'. If the original claim ("Companies perform better with more women on boards") is not provable in a comparatively simple metric like growth, and if there are indications that in fact, 'other factors' like cultural inertia currently is diametral to female success in boards, then making a law that shoehorns more women in boards is not designed to make companies perform better, but to change the assumed cultural inertia at the expense of short- to medium-term economic growth. It becomes an experiment - with the countries that do not have that kind of laws and are unlikely to implement them as a control group (looking at you, China). It only would be fair to tell that - instead of painting an unproven (and to some extend: disproven) claim a fact.
thematrixturtle 4y ago
Here's the SSGA Gender Diversity Index ETF vs the DJI. Alas, so far the experiment does not seem to be bearing out the hypothesis. https://finance.yahoo.com/chart/SHE#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 https://finance.yahoo.com/chart/SHE#eyJpbnRlcnZhbCI6IndlZWsi...

native_samples 4y ago

There's no actual evidence that women on boards yields better outcomes, it's just another false belief propagated by junk studies. But even if there was, would that be a good reason to act on it? This "logic" never seems to be deployed in men's favour. It's obvious that strong male firefighters will have better outcomes than female firefighters, that's why New York had to make the qualification tests easier in order to hire more women. Yet the rules were changed anyway. "I honestly don't know how anyone can believe the market will find the optimal outcome." Because of enormous amounts of history, theory and practice showing that it will? BTW the "confused, reactionary, panicky, racist, sexist, bigoted people" would appear to describe the people breaking the law in order to ban men from powerful positions on the basis of their gender, wouldn't it.

Broken_Hippo 4y ago
"It's obvious that strong male firefighters will have better outcomes than female firefighters, that's why New York had to make the qualification tests easier in order to hire more women." Is it obvious, though? Sure, perhaps for a few specific things, but outside of a very limited set of things... probably not. You don't need to be a strong manly man to drive a fire truck nor to use hoses. The test probably didn't actually measure what was necessary before and likely disqualified women not because it was difficult, but because it didn't actually measure how fit for the job women were (example: Measuring upper body strength alone instead of measuring how well they could carry someone out of the fire or hooking up hoses). I mean, somehow women are strong enough to be lifting patients in a nursing home but not helping folks out in a fire? I doubt this.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  > You don't need to be a strong manly man to drive a fire truck … It helps if you’re going to be doing literally anything other than just driving the apparatus. Also, why should men be relegated to the most dangerous jobs, just so that we can fill a female hiring quota by giving women the safer, less demanding jobs? > … nor to use hoses. You absolutely need to be built to man a firehose. It takes your full weight and strength to keep control of a hose with the diameters and pressures used in firefighting. With a 2.5”+ hose, it can take two full-grown men to keep control of the line with the nozzle open, especially when advancing. Nevermind hauling a charged line into a building, up stairs, etc. The weight alone is tremendous. > I mean, somehow women are strong enough to be lifting patients in a nursing home Male staffers are generally asked to do the lifting, and sometimes medical services literally call in the fire department for a lift assist. > … but not helping folks out in a fire? The structure gear alone weighs about 70 pounds. By the time you find someone in a building, you’ve been using a heavy tools, in the heat, to sound floors and search rooms rapidly in the most exhausting way possible. It’s so much more difficult than just lifting someone without all the gear on. There’s also forced entry into doors, etc, which benefits substantially from weight, leverage, and upper body strength. > I doubt this. Only because you know nothing about firefighting.