4 ms·
The article itself contradicts that explanation: "women were more effective at tasks such as executive supervision and monitoring", "Female directors also had a
by kscaldef 17y ago
The article itself contradicts that explanation: "women were more effective at tasks such as executive supervision and monitoring", "Female directors also had a better record of attending board meetings", "Our research shows that women directors are doing their jobs very well".
In fact, they also say that female directors were a benefit to "poorly-managed" companies. So, one thing you might claim is that this fits in with the general theory that the performance of men has a higher standard deviation than the performance of women.
- absconditus 17y agoPerhaps better "executive supervision and monitoring" is not desirable.
- anigbrowl 17y agoNot if you're the executive in question. Shareholders might feel differently about this :)
- DaniFong 17y agoPerhaps more closely 'executive supervision and monitoring is undesirable when the monitoring is done by people bound from the top, such as shareholders on boards, or top executives on underlings.' From the abstract: "This negative effect is driven by companies with greater shareholder rights. In firms with weaker shareholder rights, gender diversity has positive effects."
- timwiseman 17y agoYet while those traits often helped badly governed companies, the Ferreira and Adams study suggests that increased monitoring can have a negative effect on well-governed businesses. That seems to be the key sentence. Although I am not certain, it seems likely that it is board interference with already effective management, not the presence of woman, that forms the causal link here.
- neilk 17y agoAssuming that this study is well run and this popular article isn't oversimplifying... which are very big ifs... some other ideas: - Companies in trouble might turn to women as board members. Women executives are still mostly outsiders. They might be more likely to join (or be solicited to join) the board of a company doing poorly. - It's pretty well established that men are more comfortable with high risk -- sometimes to their detriment. Perhaps those companies with more female board members are less profitable but they go bankrupt less often. - It might be that companies start thinking about board diversity once they've plateaued.
- DaniFong 17y agoThis study by Catalyst may contradict your first proposal -- it shows quite a clear trend between increasing Fortune Rank and an increasing percentage of women directors (and corporate officers, to a lesser extent.) http://www.catalyst.org/etc/Census_app/07COTEUS/C_appendix5.pdf http://www.catalyst.org/etc/Census_app/07COTEUS/C_appendix5....
- chrischen 17y agoThey probably act more ethically and as a result sacrifice some opportunities for increased profit.
- anamax 17y ago> They probably act more ethically You don't have much experience with women.