5 ms·
"So is it because they're women or just exceptionally good at what they do?" Both. Women are biologically known to diversify their risks much more than men. Bo
by ChrisNorstrom 14y ago
"So is it because they're women or just exceptionally good at what they do?"
Both. Women are biologically known to diversify their risks much more than men. Both in life and in business. Companies started by women have a much smaller chance of failing and reach profitability much sooner. Female business owners are more steady and less risky. Male business owners tend to take more risk, thus getting ahead faster but at the cost of failing much faster as well. The reason we don't see big companies started by women is that taking "crazy risks" are usually a masculine trait caused by testosterone. And in order to win quickly you have to take a lot more risk. When women are administered testosterone they become more aggressive, masculine in risk taking analysis, and violent. In both men and women, the more testosterone the subject's body produces the more violent, aggressive, commanding, and confident the subject is. These findings from many studies over the course of decades. From testosterone injections in women to checking the testosterone levels of prison inmates (surprise! the most violent inmates had the highest levels of testosterone). Testosterone provides a boost in confidence and dominance but as a side effect a boost in violence and aggression. This also explains why men who hold children, even if it's a doll, had immediate decreases in testosterone levels. It's a sort of evolutionary response to try to prevent men from harming their offspring. Historicall, almost every war or genocide in human history was caused, planned, and carried out exclusively by men.
People don't like hearing those studies, they like to think that they're in control of their own life and are not slaves to their gender, genitals, or hormones. But the evidence clearly shows that we are not as much in control of ourselves as we think we are.
Too many men, like too much testosterone, is not a good thing. (see - testosterone's role in wallstreet's collapse http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-31/managing-wall-streets-winner-effect http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-31/managing-wal...) In the old economy [More risk = higher rewards] so the men won that round. Of course the worldwide economic slump is changing that. Right now it's more important to slowly grow your company safely, plan for the long term instead of the short term, and keep the company you have while growing slowly. The only two groups of people that are more prone to follow those rules are 1) women and 2)men with low testosterone levels.
So in this economic downturn women are really going to shine, which is hopefully going to open the door to more opportunities in government and leadership positions. I for one am very happy to see this, we've seen what the men have done/caused, it's time to see how the women will handle things.
- cremnob 14y agoWhere did the "women are less risky" thing come from? The Bundesbank published a paper about women bankers being riskier. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/cd4a3ac0-77f6-11e1-b437-00144feab49a.html http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/cd4a3ac0-77f6-11e1-b437-00144...
- slurgfest 14y agoI can't speak to the application in business. It's a well established idea in biology. Females invest more biologically in eggs and pregnancy. Men may have many more children than women but also have greater risk of having none. Similar patterns show up in lots of areas. At human conception there are significantly more males than females, at birth they are close to 50/50 - males are more fragile. Even after that point, on average, men take more risks, die earlier and are more likely to be murdered. So again, I don't have expertise to know what any of this has to do with who should run a company, the correlation may be extremely dodgy; but men are at a biological level riskier critters than women.
- kolinko 14y agoAny scientific research to support that? Just because you can put a nice story behind a theory doesn't make it true.
- einhverfr 14y agoSome if it ties in with this: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/105013.php http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/105013.php at least regarding sex at conception. I am not entirely sure about whether we really have hard direct data regarding sex at conception but that's one possibility regarding that data. On the other hand, it's possible that there are biological differences between sperm carrying X and Y chromosomes and that these might be selected for one way or another. However, trans-historically (closer to my field of expertise) it is generally true that men take on riskier endeavors than women do, and that women follow as areas develop. Frontiers generally tend to be nearly exclusively male (at one point the Wild West had a gender ratio of 50 men per woman, and this is not isolated. Consider the early classical practice of having the men march off in search of fortune, for example. The thing to keep in mind here is that women have a narrower window of opportunity to start a family than men do. If you are 40 and male, and you are not married, you could still get married to a younger woman and have kids, but if you are 40 and female, you are less likely to be able to have kids. Therefore men can generally better afford to move into immature markets and riskier endeavors than women can.