Comments

Hmmm ... I wonder how the financial success of having more women at the top is related to the continuing statistical evidence that females are simply paid less than males, despite many initiatives designed to level the playing field?

Posted by Kristin at May 13, 2009 10:26 AM

Kristin,

Echoing "Hmmm..." Come to think of it, right off the top of my head, I don't recall hearing anything in the news lately of a female CEO getting a ridiculous sum of money in the form of a golden parachute when a big company went defunct (or got a government bailout.) I'm sure it has probably happened, but I sure don't remember hearing about it if it did.

Coincidence?

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 13, 2009 11:45 AM

Kirsten the numbers don't lie!
Dan you'd recall it if it happened?
All, break the pattern, please.

Posted by patrick at May 13, 2009 1:08 PM

patrick, if I'd seen it, I'd recall it. But no memory of seeing such. If you know of one, I'd be curious to know.

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 13, 2009 1:51 PM

I would be interested in any studies, etc, that would try to shed light on the following question:

How much of these results come from diversity in sex/age/race/etc and how much comes from diversity of thought, action, insight, experiences, bias, etc?

I remember reading in the 1980s a NY Times Magazine article by the first female editor at the Los Angeles Times (I think). She promoted women into traditionally male positions, hoping to bring the benefits of female leadership without the problems of traditional male behavior. The article was about how the women promoted started to adopt the supposedly male behavior that she was hoping to change.

Ever since, I have wondered how much of traditional male behavior is actually derived from fulfilling male roles and not from being male? If women lived the life of men and vice versa, how many roles, characteristics, etc, would also reverse?

I guess this is another dimension of the "nature vs nurture/gene vs environment/etc" question.

Posted by Stephen Garner at May 14, 2009 4:46 PM

Stephen,

Excellent questions you raise. I suppose that in order to really dig into them would involve looking at organizations in which women move up to "fill" traditionally male roles (more specifically taking over an actual position held by a male in the past) and contrasting that with organizations in which females have filled those positions from the beginning.

The extreme might be helpful in this case: an organization FOUNDED and run predominantly by females, with females constantly holding all the key leadership positions would yield a clearer picture of what happens when the position and job description is CREATED and DEFINED from a female perspective. Body Shops strikes me as a possibly good candidate for one case study. My memory may be getting things mixed up, but I vaguely seem to recall this being one of the companies that Peter Lynch loved so much when he took the famed "Magellan" fund to record-setting growth -- an indicator that something was being done right at Body Shops.

Granted, we might still see some possible migration from female-associated to male-associated traits and behaviors as these female leaders take their "cues" from male counterparts outside the organization -- through networking, industry associations, etc.

But very thought provoking issues you raise here. I certainly don't claim to have the answers, but I do have lots of suspicions. And perhaps I'm also one of those people that feels that "What could it HURT to try putting a female in the CEO'S office? The O.W.M.'s sure haven't gotten us where I'd like to see us going.

That's one thing I loved about this latest Presidential campaign and election. America was given the possibility of choosing one of two firsts in terms of choosing a President, or going the O.W.M. route. My gut feeling that Americans were desperate to try a different course was more than confirmed by the fact that one of those two candidates moved into the White House and charts this country's course at THE desk in the Oval Office. Americans took the "change" route the first time it was really put on the table as an option. It didn't take much "adjusting to the idea." Americans spoke strongly in the vote. I don't think the world of business is much different. It's all about leadership and figuring out who we feel comfortable standing behind.

Honestly, I would have stood behind Obama or Clinton, anticipating progress for America. That may sound naive, but after 132 years of one very similar trait in Presidents, Americans were not happy with where we are. The vote -- I am convinced -- was every bit as much for "change" as it was for Obama. That's not to belittle him or make light of anything he stands for or has done. He is a brilliant, visionary man, firmly grounded in the ideas of fairness and looking out for ALL the people in this country. But others (many, many others) have claimed the same beliefs and sailed America into a lot of hidden reefs (some not so hidden.) That wasn't enough for Americans this time. "Change" was the agenda.

God Bless America.

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 16, 2009 2:18 PM

Pardon the above typo. "132 years" ??? LOL. I know my history (and math) a bit better than that. We'll settle on 232 years. 2008-1776... yep... calculator confirms "232." Sorry about that. Nobody's prefetc, right? ;-)

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 17, 2009 9:48 AM

I am pretty sure that I agree with almost everything Dan says.

What stood out most of all is "And perhaps I'm also one of those people that feels that "What could it HURT to try putting a female in the CEO'S office?"

I agree.

My personal take is that most business leaders often are there not because they are great for the job, but they are great at getting the job.

I once read that Jack Welch's predecessor said he chose Welch because he was the most different from the organization. I think this is the most critical reason for Welch's success.

So, often I am for changing things and having a deep bench.

Posted by Stephen Garner at May 19, 2009 1:41 PM

buy viagra online 25mg Stephen,

"...changing things and having a deep bench."

Good choice of words/analogy. I guess you could look at it this way: while your competitor is switching out players in order to continue their "winning game plan," put in a new COACH when you're down by about 50 points and your competitor is suddenly at a HUGE disadvantage -- they have NO IDEA what your game plan will be for the rest of the match. LOL.

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 19, 2009 4:43 PM

A new article on the question of if CEOs matter: Atlantic Monthly June 2009 http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200906/steve-jobs .

Posted by Stephen Garner at May 20, 2009 12:47 PM

Each gender an extremely defined brain type. Both are magnificent, especially when they supplement.

Posted by Andres Agostini (Andy) at May 23, 2009 10:44 PM