3 ms·

The title of this submission is grossly inaccurate---the study in question shows nothing of the kind. This is a textbook example of the media (and the submitte

The title of this submission is grossly inaccurate---the study in question shows nothing of the kind. This is a textbook example of the media (and the submitter) jumping on correlation and confusing it with causation. Women represent a tiny minority of board members overall, and it's reasonable to assume that the old boys' network would be strongest among the wealthiest and most powerful boards. This demonstrates nothing but that the glass ceiling cracks on the lowest levels first.

asimjalis 17y ago
Here is another explanation: Underperforming companies are more desperate and so choose candidates with good track records even if they are not male. Males who can have the pick of the crop are more likely to work for successful companies. So the causation could go the other way: female directors are more likely to be chosen by underperforming companies than overperforming ones.
- vannevar 17y ago
  Your argument requires a preference among successful companies for male directors, which is essentially the same as the "old boy's network" theory. It may be that the preference is rational, but this study provides no evidence to prove that assertion.
limist 17y ago
No, incorrect. There is weak correlation between posting an article and personally agreeing with its title, because many times titles are simply re-used, for expediency and accuracy. Also, I personally did not confuse correlation with causation, see my earlier comment. Sufficient correlation suggests further possibilities and questions of causation. The researchers' quotations strongly suggests they too did not confuse correlation with causation.
- vannevar 17y ago
  The title of the article clearly and unequivocally states causation---it says quite plainly that women directors are the cause of the lower profits, when in fact the exact opposite may be true. I don't doubt that the researchers are more responsible than those deliberately distorting their findings in order to draw an audience. Regardless of who is responsible, the title remains factually, objectively incorrect.

asimjalis 17y ago

Here is another explanation: Underperforming companies are more desperate and so choose candidates with good track records even if they are not male. Males who can have the pick of the crop are more likely to work for successful companies. So the causation could go the other way: female directors are more likely to be chosen by underperforming companies than overperforming ones.

vannevar 17y ago
Your argument requires a preference among successful companies for male directors, which is essentially the same as the "old boy's network" theory. It may be that the preference is rational, but this study provides no evidence to prove that assertion.

limist 17y ago

No, incorrect. There is weak correlation between posting an article and personally agreeing with its title, because many times titles are simply re-used, for expediency and accuracy. Also, I personally did not confuse correlation with causation, see my earlier comment. Sufficient correlation suggests further possibilities and questions of causation. The researchers' quotations strongly suggests they too did not confuse correlation with causation.

vannevar 17y ago
The title of the article clearly and unequivocally states causation---it says quite plainly that women directors are the cause of the lower profits, when in fact the exact opposite may be true. I don't doubt that the researchers are more responsible than those deliberately distorting their findings in order to draw an audience. Regardless of who is responsible, the title remains factually, objectively incorrect.