3 ms·
Pretty funny, because "Google For Entrepreneurs" has spammed my G+ timeline all week with studies on women led companies making more money. Well actually not st
by facepalm 13y ago
Pretty funny, because "Google For Entrepreneurs" has spammed my G+ timeline all week with studies on women led companies making more money. Well actually not studies, just infographics making that claim. Glad to see some counterexample - I think it is always naive to assume "just put a woman on top and the company will do x% better/worse".
- henrikschroder 13y agoBoth claims might be true, it could very well be the case that women-led companies have higher revenues than average, but re-invest more of their profit margin in the workforce than average.
- facepalm 13y agoMaybe - I actually don't think it's very interesting, because I doubt "women" are the deciding factor. It seems more likely to me that women prefer certain types businesses, that for random chance did well in recent years (ie Social Networks vs mining or car manufacturing). I dug up one of those papers, by Credit Suisse, and it was exactly as I thought: counting from 2006 onwards women led companies performed better than others. But if women were the factor, why didn't that effect show before 2006? (Not sure if it was exactly 2006, but some recent year). It's well known that if you are allowed to pick the time frame, you can make any investment look good ("if you bought stock x in year y, you would have tripled your investment in 10 years" - but you would have lost everything in year 11...).