4 ms·

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 does

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.
  - kennywinker 4y ago
    Well based on the study you cited, there was no significant impact of women on boards detected - so the worst case is performance stays the same but equality is increased. The best case is that gender-diverse boards perform better in the absence of cultural factors, and this law changes the culture and performance increases. Sounds like we win either way - more equality and stable performance, or more equality and increased performance. Where's the downside?
    - DocTomoe 4y ago
      I should have been more clear: I was also refering to the index comparison shared by thematrixturtle [1]. Differently from you, I don't assume the idea that co-ed teams will eventually outperform more homogenous teams is a foregone conclusion. Which means that there are scenarios in which we don't all win. [1] https://finance.yahoo.com/chart/SHE#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 https://finance.yahoo.com/chart/SHE#eyJpbnRlcnZhbCI6IndlZWsi...

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.
- kennywinker 4y ago
  Well based on the study you cited, there was no significant impact of women on boards detected - so the worst case is performance stays the same but equality is increased. The best case is that gender-diverse boards perform better in the absence of cultural factors, and this law changes the culture and performance increases. Sounds like we win either way - more equality and stable performance, or more equality and increased performance. Where's the downside?
  - DocTomoe 4y ago
    I should have been more clear: I was also refering to the index comparison shared by thematrixturtle [1]. Differently from you, I don't assume the idea that co-ed teams will eventually outperform more homogenous teams is a foregone conclusion. Which means that there are scenarios in which we don't all win. [1] https://finance.yahoo.com/chart/SHE#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 https://finance.yahoo.com/chart/SHE#eyJpbnRlcnZhbCI6IndlZWsi...