The author's conclusion is not "high proportion" compared to overall employee count (i.e. >50%) but a proportion that is not "below average compared to the aver

The author's conclusion is not "high proportion" compared to overall employee count (i.e. >50%) but a proportion that is not "below average compared to the average in the respective industry." One outcome detailed in your book is that young start-up companies survive longer if the proportion of women in the workforce is higher. Women on the board and as CEOs also have an influence on salary distribution and productivity in companies. This all sounds very “politically correct”. But what are the facts behind this? I hadn't thought of it in that way, but yes, it can be interpreted like that, although it is not about that. If start-ups have a significantly below-average proportion of women in their workforce – below average compared to the average in the respective industry – then this suggests a distortion in the recruitment process. This means that well-qualified women are consciously or unconsciously disadvantaged compared to men. Such distortions are a clear indication that companies do not have an optimal personnel policy. If more women sit on the board, the pay gap between men and women will narrow, especially at levels below the boardroom.