Comments

This article is being discussed at the NYTimes online, too: http://is.gd/b86jc
And if you'd like to see what readers there are saying: http://is.gd/b86dO

Posted by cathy mosca at March 31, 2010 6:53 AM

But we wanted dare-devils who would make investing fun and exciting, didn't we?

Posted by Mike L. at April 1, 2010 4:16 AM

Yes I do think that a different culture in finance may have had a different outcome. But that has nothing to do with sex or emotion being on or off.

I think it's time we started a mascalism movement to promote a positive image of men and to reduce stereotyping in business. I am tired of male type casting (either model good looks testosterone superman or baffoon to be shown how to get things right in adverts). Too few images show men to be caring, wise, creative, in touch with their emotions and yet many men I work with are much more like that.

I think we need to move beyond the logic vs emotion debate. All human beings are emotional - logic (in human terms not mathematical) is a part of that emotion. Our brains are not wired in a binary way - they are wired with many shades of grey.

When we make "logical" decisions I think we really make an emotional attraction to certain facts that we like and trust.

We will make much more progress in the work place by understanding our emotions rather than supressing them.

We are more like early analog synthesisers rather than digital sound samplers - we don't produce the same sound with exact precision twice but we can produce a sound that's warm and fat and full of character. In music many are going back to analog sounds for this reason - it's time we took a look at it in business too.

Posted by PaulH at April 1, 2010 4:59 AM

kolhatkar kaku !

Lai Bhari !

It is not men's fault. god made us like that.

ujwal

Posted by ujwal at April 1, 2010 5:58 AM

PaulH is spot on. Shouldn't the piece have been named The Emotional AGender perhaps?

Posted by Tim at April 1, 2010 7:03 AM

Yin and yang?

Most industries fall into the trap of implementing their own stereotypes. My own logistics field usually incorporates notions of an old-fashioned, beer-bellied, ex-driver Transport Manager who has no time for computers but can happily manage a roomful of bloody-minded truckers. Meantime, the computer-literate person who can get the best out of a route scheduling programme will be castigated for not being able to handle the same roomful of bloody-minded truckers!

[NB The best operator I met recently was a mid-20's graduate who also happened to be a lady. She was also cany enough to use her gender as well as her character to manipulate the same truckers quite fantastically!]

Yin and yang. Or back to our old friends and having an attitude that can comfortably manage simultaneous loose / tight, hard / soft features.

Posted by Mark JF at April 1, 2010 7:23 AM

"young males to behave in an unregulated way"

Really? Ay caramba! Well, on the positive side, half of that statement makes sense and can help explain the root cause. The other half is best left in the 20th century.

"What If Women Ran Wall Street?"

Yes, one could think about this, especially with women whistle blowers (Enron), the former head of CFTC, and the chairman of Congressional Oversight Panel, etc. These are intelligent, rational, thinking, ethical, mature women, that are open-minded and care about quality and process improvement. But then I look at some other women in the news, I'm reminded of something Madeleine Albright said in response to a similar statement. It went something like, anyone that thinks women would do a better job doesn't remember their high school days. Amen.

I think we need to step back, and remember a little MLK, and look at the character of the individuals, anything else is a diversion and a waste of time.

Posted by dj at April 1, 2010 4:15 PM

Tom,

Corruption has no gender at all (sic). I have seen great ladies doing wonderful tenures as I have seen some gentlemen.

In public office, I have seen too many males doing the wrong thing worldwide. Having voted for some prominent ladies and otherwise, I have seen promissory ladies -- with a supposed ethical life prior to the effort -- make the same mistakes.

I could mention, hadn't it be because of the huge liability to experience, many, many former and current female states-people making or having made existential catastrophes for their constituencies.

In the final analysis, as per my view, ladies and gentlemen are people. In every occasion that there has been a person with the best merits (most reviewed facts) for a major undertaking -- either a female or male --, I will support that person fully regardless of gender.

I was asked by a large company's board to assist them to choose the best candidate for a EVP position. There were 3 guys and 1 lady. I suggested the lady because she had the merits and she got the position.

Posted by Andres Agostini at April 1, 2010 9:58 PM

I strongly believe that gender differences are non-trivial. Though I surely acknowledge that we are talking about overlapping normal distributions. It's just that the mean and median can be pretty far apart.

Posted by tom peters at April 1, 2010 10:52 PM

I am a great fan of Secretary Albright. But it is an irrefutable fact that about 95% of violence-international, domestic abuse, violent non-domestic abuse crime-is committed by males.

Posted by tom peters at April 1, 2010 10:55 PM

"It's just that the mean and median can be pretty far apart."

I need to know Tom - which gender is the mean one.....?

Seriouly though, You are right talking about gender differences being non trivial. The question then turns to what proportion is about the individual sexes and what proportion is about culture. If you have a culture of male matcho BS then the only women who survive and thrive there will be female matcho BS.

If you want to change things and change your recruitment policy to recruit "soft tree hugger" types surely you can simply recruit to that type rather than the sex that is most like that type?

Posted by PaulH at April 2, 2010 2:37 AM

Paul, I fear nature has a lot to do wit it. Our roles in the gave called for hunter-killers and community developers to survive. I do agree that selection can make incredibly significant difference. I totally disagree (and maybe you were just playing with me) that if you write off aggressive ones you must have "tree huggers" as alternatives. Agression works damn well in entrepreneurial settings. but in some other settings it's disastrous. Of course there are a hundred if not a thousand shades of gray.

Posted by tom peters at April 2, 2010 7:31 AM

I was a little lame on editing in my prior comment. (Rushing to pack for doozer of a trip).)Revised:

Paul, I fear nature has a lot to do with it. Our roles in the cave called for hunter-killers and community developers to survive.

I do agree that selection can make incredibly significant difference.

I totally disagree (and maybe you were just playing with me) that if you write off aggressive ones you must necessarily have "tree huggers" as alternatives. (Agression works damn well in entrepreneurial settings. but in some other settings it's disastrous.) Of course there are a hundred if not a thousand shades of gray!!

Posted by tom peters at April 2, 2010 7:34 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szZsKdJYR-A&feature=related

Posted by zorro at April 3, 2010 7:38 PM