Slashdot Mirror
Female-Run Companies Often do Better Than Male-Run Ones (Video)
Today's interviewee, Viktoria Tsukanov, is one of the executives at predictive marketing company Mintigo who did a study in January, 2015 that seemed to show that large companies with female CEOs "achieve up to 18% higher revenue per employee than male CEOs." The study, titled "She’s the CEO and She’s Sensational," used financial data Mintigo collected on 20 million companies, and determined CEOs' genders by analyzing first names, so it was not subject to survey vagaries but was a straight data analysis job. Could this be a case of correlation and causation being unrelated? It's possible. It's also possible that the revenue per employee figures are affected by the fact that female CEOs are more common in healthcare and non-profit organizations, while men dominate manufacturing and construction -- and, as Viktoria pointed out in a blog post headlined "Women Just Raised the Bar. Big Time." there may be other factors at work as well.
The "18% higher revenue" figure specifically applies to companies with more than 1000 workers, while companies with fewer workers may average more revenue per employee if they have male CEOs. Besides discussing the study itself, in our interview Viktoria talks about how male employees might want to alter (or not alter) their behavior if they find themselves working for a female boss for the first time. She also discusses challenges a woman might face if she is suddenly put in charge of a heavily male IT or programming staff. Other thoughts she shares have to do with finding mentors and dealing with negative people, both of which apply to people of all genders. Interesting food for thought all around.
The "18% higher revenue" figure specifically applies to companies with more than 1000 workers, while companies with fewer workers may average more revenue per employee if they have male CEOs. Besides discussing the study itself, in our interview Viktoria talks about how male employees might want to alter (or not alter) their behavior if they find themselves working for a female boss for the first time. She also discusses challenges a woman might face if she is suddenly put in charge of a heavily male IT or programming staff. Other thoughts she shares have to do with finding mentors and dealing with negative people, both of which apply to people of all genders. Interesting food for thought all around.
And why the fuck does it auto-play when I open the article?
Wildly abused.
SJW, please....
feminists are the worst kind of ignorantly hypocritical sexists... and we can all agree, SEXISTS ARE THE WORST.
Would this article show up when talking about:
"Male-Run companies often do better than Female-run ones" ?
Would it? On Slashdot the news for SJWs - apparently.
Btw such article would be correct (this statement is correct).
Same goes for...
Streight-run companies often do better than homosexual-run ones.
Homosexuals-run companies often do better than streight-run ones.
White-run companies often do better then Blakcs-run ones.
Blacks-run companies often do better then normale ones.
etc.
Does anyone thing ONLY male CEO can ever bring a success?
Of course not. What are you fighting with Slashdot?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Run by women, not so great revenue per employee.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
This interview is terrible. It seems as if they pulled this chick off of the street and put her behind a camera. If she is the future of women owned companies, we are all in trouble.
And often don't. WTF is this?
I'm not quite sure why a video has just auto-played on slashdot, but the tone of her voice made me shut it off immediately. Sorry miss. You might have a fancy degree, but you're 23, maybe 24 years old, with little to no real world experience.
Something something causation != correlation.
Wait a second - what is a "VP of customer success?" It doesn't matter... She's the only person out of 8 "leadership" roles that has a vageen.
*DISCLAIMER! I do not hate women - just know it all bitches. Yes, I said it. Wanna fight about it?
Yea, okay, so yet another article, well now video, that states just how superior women are to men. Nice. So should I just tell my 2 pre-teen sons just how lame they are compared to girls?
Was very interested. Then realized that this is based on revenue per employee, which is totally useless as a measure of success. Enron had revenue of $100.8 billion in 2000.
He give her a break. She's a woman. She doesn't understand math or the fact that companies need to turn a profit to be successful.
Of course, there could be a difference between 'run by' and 'employing only'.
Do we argue because we're on slashdot or is that just a correlation?
I'd like to change the argument to "Why throw down such a specious but otherwise ridiculous gauntlet OTHER than to cause flame wars". Nothing is to be gained here, no value is added.
... we should ignore the trolling TFA and concentrate this discussion on the autoplaying video?
They later went bankrupt. OFC it's Dailyfail, so take it with a grain of salt.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Fuck Off
Having them makes Bennet look desirable as a replacement. At least I can see from front page to avoid his rants.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Maybe they are a matriarchy instead of a patriarchy.
The linked PDF file gives absolutely no indication on the method used to determine correlation. Unless you've done some singular value decomposition and principle component analysis on a list of factors that could contribute to productivity, I don't really see anything scientific about this study. Who's to say that productivity isn't more strongly correlated to types of industry (take note of the very bottom of the study, where healthcare and non-profits have more female CEOs whereas manufacturing has more male CEOs)?
In all fairness, she's just employing the same deceptive tactics of male run companies that make up bullshit with statistics.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
2) Selection bias. I.E. Companies run by morons refuse to consider a woman CEO. As such, the higher performance of the woman is due to the fact that none of them have moronic boards of directors sabotaging them.
This kind of thing just proves women can be good CEOs, rather than proving they make better CEOs.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
seemed to show that large companies with female CEOs "achieve up to 18% higher revenue per employee than male CEOs."
Let's assume that is true for a moment. The important question is WHY? The second question is whether the higher revenue is due to the efforts of the CEO or merely a second or third order effect of something else. Merely noting that some category of people tends to run companies with higher revenue means nothing by itself. They are spouting a fact and trying to goad people into drawing unwarranted inferences about the reason why. This is a top notch troll.
The study, titled "She’s the CEO and She’s Sensational," used financial data Mintigo collected on 20 million companies, and determined CEOs' genders by analyzing first names, so it was not subject to survey vagaries but was a straight data analysis job.
My first name is normally associated with the opposite gender and I'm male. This is a stupid way to determine gender. I speak from a lifetime of firsthand experience.
Plus with a title like that I'm fairly confident that there is a built in bias at work here.
Could this be a case of correlation and causation being unrelated?
Gee you think?
It's also possible that the revenue per employee figures are affected by the fact that female CEOs are more common in healthcare and non-profit organizations, while men dominate manufacturing and construction
Let's add in the fact that female CEOs are generally under-represented in large companies and companies that choose female CEOs might be better at promoting the most talented person instead of their golfing buddy.
The first problem is that this is not about correlation or causation. TFA is just a mess. Here's an example:
None of those three examples have anything to do with leadership.
That's "apples vs oranges" not "correlation vs causation".
Fuck you and your auto run video. Do you not know your fucking audience?
Also, go fuck yourself with this SJW bullshit.
Thanks for mentioning this. Revenue is a pretty useless figure and no one pays attention to it for determining the health or success of a company. Metrics like profit, net profit, or cash flow are far better indicators.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Well, they say that female led companies are more common in B2C industries, more common on the coasts (esp. New England to Washington D.C. ), and more common in healthcare industries, and in non-profits. They apparently didn't control for any of those.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
aka "human garbage"
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
In other news, male-run companies often do better than other male-run companies... so what difference does this insight make? As a woman I find it stiflingly stupid. I'd even go so far as to call it sexist, but to both genders. It demeans women by making it seem like the real complexity of such things is beyond them, and it demeans men by continuing this asinine recent online push towards feigned female superiority. Did anyone need to know this, and if they did, were they the types who needed it put in such an antagonistic manner?
Companies that are highly profitable decide to hire female CEO's.
You'd need to look at historical profits for the companies and see how they changed when the female leader was chosen.
hmmm
Brainstorming one other reason would be females often work for less money- and companies that have female CEO's might have more female workers.
In the end, a given arbitrary female can be better than a given arbitrary male. And at the CEO level for 1,000+ employee companies, you are not talking about more than 10,000 people out of the entire global population (and probably less than than) so the "top 3000 females" might easily be better at being a CEO than a simliar number of male CEO's at that level.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
"Today's interviewee, Viktoria Tsukanov, is one of the executives at predictive marketing company Mintigo who did a study in January, 2015 that seemed to show that large companies with female CEOs "achieve up to 18% higher revenue per employee than male CEOs." "
A strict reading of this says that the absolute best female CEO-run company achieves only 18% higher revenue per employee compared to the absolute worst male CEO-run company.
That sounds really fucking bad.
The stats are revenue per employee. Where does Microsoft sit on that list. Being most profitable does not necessarily mean efficient.
Female-Run Companies Often do Better Than Male-Run Ones
Shouldn't that be the expected situation?
I didn't watch the motherfucking autoplay video at my desk at the office where my fucking coworkers had to hear a fucking autoplaying fucking shitpile of shit video*, but I would expect 50% of female-run companies to outperform male-run companies just by chance, alone.
Do female CEOs do better than a coin flip? If so, then I guess that's news. And if not, then I suppose that's news, too.
* For all I know, the video was an exemplary piece of journalism, but I'm still a bit incensed that it autoplayed. Not cool.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
simple as that. If the employees don't respect the management whether male or female and their work environment they wont give a fuck about the company.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
We live in a female-dominated society. Useful attributes like creativity, problem-solving, science, engineering, are all long in the past.
We are now in the touchy-feely emotional society. No wonder a "company" that does "predictive marketing" makes more money, no one knows what it means and men working there will probably kill themselves after six months of useless garbage work.
Face it, we men are obsolete.
calling out hypocrisy is not misogyny
This website has been taken over by SJW the moment commandertaco stepped down.
I watched fark go the same way in 2010, as well as many other sites which I loved.
Subtle yet completely different content injected into a media stream as an effort to
program the audience to a specific viewpoint. This is the first time I've seen a video,
and the video is pure advertising for a marketing company, nothing more.
At least reddit keeps their fanatics confined to their own specific topical subreddit.
I do care about the f'in abysmal quality of it..
You are suggesting that female-run companies are more successful because the vagina bestows some management power that penis equipped CEOs lack? You could be right, but I would think that companies that promote based on merit would be more successful. Likely companies with woman as CEO are not promoting based on genitalia but rather based on merit.
calling out hypocrisy is not misogyny
FYI if you so much as comment on an article about women and your comment isn't full of praise, you're a misogynist.
Entirely without bothering to google the information and randomly grabbing the headline examples that come to mind - HP, bad, Yahoo, good, GM, bad etc.
*shrugs*
I simply think that a company that it less set in its historical ways (men strong and better) has more flexibility - and is therefore more likely to promote a woman if she's the best person for the job.
I happen to work for an evil-capitalistic-Israeli-mega-corp. I could bang on about their shortcomings for a very long time - *but* - they do have a pretty enlightened gender oblivious attitude - and we're better for it.
Oh I'm wandering off-topic here - but my point is mainly that if you consider men and women, on average, to be equally competent and the current sausage-party of male-dominated everything to therefore be a historical hangover, then it's not a huge leap to realize that more progressive companies, are more likely be succeeding and also to have plonked a female CEO on the seat.
I have one response: Carly Fiorina
Except that the people who actually run the company (CEO, CFO, CTO, President) are all males.
If you count the employees in the group pic, you'll see 12 men and 6 women. Articles like this do more harm than good.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Perhaps we can stop giving woman owned businesses special treatment now? No more penalties if you don't give enough contracts to woman owned businesses.
can we downrate an article so it is removed from the home page?
Ironic :) The finding is interesting though. I'm not sure why so many here are threatened by it.
I consider it good policy that I don't rate countries or companies based on profitability
From my perspective, there's only one question worth asking. "On average, are they better to work for?"
bill gates is a women LOL
Bruce Jenner is, and she's worth $100 million :-)
Chaz Bono, on the other hand, isn't, and he's worth only half a million.
Doesn't change the fact that the article is crap.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Viktoria talks about how male employees might want to alter (or not alter) their behavior if they find themselves working for a female boss for the first time.
So, not respecting them as an individual?
Carly Fiorina wasn't exactly the best thing for HP. Right down to the fact HP is just a computer company now. They spun off the test gear division to Agilent. Oh and I think they still make printers.
I listened pretty far, but still don't know why these companies with higher revenue are more likely to hire a woman CEO.
Gently reply
How did she manage to dig out 20-million US-based companies?
Doesn't this number feel a bit mind boggling for you, consider the entire eligible work force of the U.S. is only about 188 million? In other words, about 1 in 10 of the population within the U.S. owns a business.
Turns out that the total number of business registered in the U.S. is only 7.4mil in 2010 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/26/us-usa-economy-businesses-idUSBRE85P0X720120626).
If she is a VP at a company that does marketing, and she can't even properly size her market... perhaps that's why they went bankrupt.
Try the whole study again with profit, or at least, net income, and it might interesting.
I'm guessing she did, but the results didn't match her expectations.
^ That is all!
Slashdot needs a new icon. It seems like almost every day we're getting another "study" posted with useless methodology used to leap to some ridiculous conclusion. It's all clickbait and we're getting sick of it. Put a clickbait icon on these things or stop posting this nonsense.
I'm not sure why so many here are threatened by it.
Because women are trespassing on roles that ought to be a male preserve, such as leadership roles,
Soooooo... Sexism?
I think part of the problem is that everyone is just fed up. We've all gotten burned by the SJWs manipulations which turned out to be more about promoting themselves than any concept of social justice.
Then there's the whole mess of the gender imbalance in coding, and the stupid way the government is being conned into addressing this by running a program that is discriminatory on its face, as well as it being an attempt by the backers to continue flooding the job market with programmers so as to reduce wages further and keep the pipeline full of workers prepared to accept deteriorating work conditions..
Historically, women left the field by 40, the majority citing misogyny, with contributing factors being the lack of opportunities for advancement, the terrible working conditions, and the sucky lifestyle. Nowadays it's also happening to men - they're finding that they are increasingly unemployable after 40 due to ageism, have to compete against people half their age who are ready to work for significantly less and tolerate a lot more to "get their foot in the door" and "show they can tough it out no matter how bad it gets." Add in the H1Bs to fulfill the non-existent "shortage", and people (of both genders) need to realize these trends benefit nobody in the workforce.
It's a confluence of events - an almost perfect storm - that has everyone on both sides of the gender divide on the defensive - except, of course, for those who profit by being the most offensive while knowing that everyone will be afraid to call them out for being woman-haters, and the media who only care about ratings and clicks.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The stats are revenue per employee.
Revenue per employee doesn't mean much. That is like rating programmers by "lines of code". What matters is not revenue, but profit. Plenty of companies with very high revenues go bankrupt. Selling cars for $50k each doesn't work if materials, labor, and overhead cost $52k.
unless you are amazon
Yay, another "women are better than men" article, soon to be followed with an article that insists men and women are exactly the same so therefore gender disparities in men's favor mean discrimination.
Also: "Other thoughts she shares have to do with finding mentors and dealing with negative people"
You know what you do with negative people? You give them work to do. Because you damn sure won't get so much out of positive rah-rah people; they're positive someone else will do it and aren't willing to look at the challenges long enough to figure out a way to overcome them. Though they'll be happy to take all the credit once the negative people do so... no matter, the negative people knew that would happen.
When progressives complain about "the 1%" and all that, they say people just succeed because of privilege and random luck. When progressives argue for feminist policies, they keep pointing to data that women are really much better suited to well-paying positions than men. So, which is it? Is Viktoria Tsukanov a privileged one-percenter who stumbled into her position through pure luck, networking, and a privileged upbringing? Or does individual performance matter after all and are there differences between the sexes? And if women are demonstrably so much better at generating profit, why don't more companies hire them as CEOs? I mean, we are also told that all corporations care about is maximizing profit.
Do you all finally see now?! THIS is why we need to force more women into the tech industry by any means necessary. So that companies like Facebook, Apple, and Google can FINALLY make a profit
I don't give a crap if the company is led by a man or a woman. The bottom line is competence. Take a look at Carly Fiorina or Meg Whitman. HP stock was valued approximately $170/share in 1999 when Fiorina took over. It went down more than half after her reign. Yes, it split once. In order to be at parity with HP's 1999 value, the stock would have to be in the 80's. Sixteen years later, it's less than half of that. Try taking a look at General Motors with its female CEO. It's just skyrocketing (not). However, we have dweebs like Robert Nardelli who ran Home Depot in to the ground, then did the same with Chrysler. Incompetence knows no gender. Statistically, more companies are run by men so statistically, more companies have the possibility of being run by incompetent men. However, let's take a look at the small number of large companies (oh yes, there's IBM too) that are run by women. Are they doing well? The whole premise is flawed. Crappy leadership yields crappy results regardless of whether the company is run by a vagina or a penis.
Dang! You took the words out of my mouth.
How to lie with statistics... "up to"? What's that "down to"? What's average and what's the median?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
I listened pretty far, but still don't know why these companies with higher revenue are more likely to hire a woman CEO.
That's easy. A board of directors who are already enjoying unusually high revenues per employee are much more willing to make a risky personnel decision, for the Street cred', than a board facing poor revenues per employee.
Seriously we measure success of a company and CEO by Revenue per employee now? So if I make a million dollars revenue per employee I am massively successful even if I am making a loss? This study is so bad it is just plain embarrassment, I am surprised she was willing to make it public.
The "18% higher revenue" figure specifically applies to companies with more than 1000 workers, while companies with fewer workers may average more revenue per employee if they have male CEOs.
It could have been titled "male-run companies do better" (specifically applies to companies with less than 1000 workers).
I hope the actual article is better than this
that has to be the most useless metric of the year
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
yes 20 million companies + over 1000 employees = 20 billion employees in the study.
anything fishy about that number folks?
...welcome our new female overlords
I don't like this subject because it tends to give my crazy libertarian bosses arguments a point of validity. Every time a contract comes up to bid the Minority Business Subsidies are used as a sticking point to force the admins, one of which is my boss, to bid lower on a contract then they would really want, or subcontract out to qualify for the contract. How you'd even account for this in any psudo "study" like this one is beyond me. The data's not easily accessible, and most people don't want to expose the back end of their bidding process to avoid a competitor figuring out how to undercut them. Personally I'd try to look at revenue by source per employee since Government contracts tend to lean more to the Minority Business Subsidies side of the equation, but even then that's not going to expose the White Men who had to bid lower just to get the contract. Unless you accept this study as such evidence, but that's why I don't particularly like these psudo "studies". You can always twist them to whatever you want them to be.
Step 3: Profit!!!^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H ... er, Revenue!!!
Using the old opera, i get a nice and silent "This video isn't encoded for your device", so that broad won't get any forced views from me to brag "look how many ppl watch my vid, i am sooo relevant"
Sometimes it pays off to use obsolete technology ;)
"Up to 18%" is about as scientific as a horoscope telling you that you may have good fortune today. When did an infographic from a marketing company become a valid, independently verified source, worthy of a Slashdot article ?
I listened pretty far, but still don't know why these companies with higher revenue are more likely to hire a woman CEO.
It's obvious. In successful companies the CEO doesn't do much and lets the workers work :)
Except that the people who actually run the company (CEO, CFO, CTO, President) are all males.
If you count the employees in the group pic, you'll see 12 men and 6 women. Articles like this do more harm than good.
LOL! :D
:&
Also look at "our leadership" = out of 8, 7 are male
Do you really feel so threatened to lose the status quo that your first reflex is to troll yourself about the design of the webpage and post comments of sexual harassment re:the interviewee? Show some critical facility just for a minute. you are just regurgitating willfully ignorant bullshit. Feminism aims for the liberation of all people you know, that includes men. Feminism is not against men at all, its against patriarchy, which is a system that is not for men as much as it is for its own self. your insecurities and maldontentment with life and sexuality are due to patriarchy and the way it sets up expectations that are hurtful to live up/down to, fantasies that can only be achieved in violence. Feminism is to hold the system accountable and to show that it is beyond the individuals by marking their contribution and relationship to patriarchy. You are defending your masters with your souls.
I don't know that there's any decent metric to compare such a large and diverse pool of people and companies and water it down into some simple statement about how effectively one gender does something.
If fact...why the hell am I back on /.? I find myself just arguing with comments (not you, necessarily, but I've made some other marks in this comment section) from people who came here just to start a fight.
This article is standard /. format; it's not SJW, it's not feminazism; it's Slashdot gunning for clicks with poor titles, crappy editing, and ultimately useless "studies" that are somehow "News for Nerds."
If this article were true companies would be falling over themselves to install female CEO's and claim the 18% additional revenue. There are good CEO's and bad CEO's and gender has nothing to do with it. You are right though. If we don't all jump up and clamor about the wonders of women there will be outrage from all the white nights.
I consider it good policy that I don't rate countries or companies based on profitability
Not sure what countries has to do with it but the profitability of a company says a lot about how successful a company is and it has a lot to do with whether the company will be able to continue as a going concern. Profitability is not the only thing that matters but it DOES matter. A lot. It matters if you are an owner/investor for obvious reasons. It matters if you are an employee because profitability tends to equal opportunity, both financial and otherwise. It matters if you are a vendor or a customer because that can impact your own profitability. It matters if you are merely a part of the community because it affects tax revenue and charitable contributions and employment figures.
From my perspective, there's only one question worth asking. "On average, are they better to work for?"
Plenty of companies that are great to work for go out of business because they weren't very good at making money. You are thinking purely as an employee which is fine if you have no further ambitions in life. I think of companies from the standpoints of employees, investors, management, customers, vendors as well as society at large and then come up with an opinion about how good a company it is. Looking at a company solely from the standpoint of whether you'd want to work there misses a lot of important stuff. Generally speaking you really don't want to work for a company that isn't profitable or has no reasonable prospects to become so.
It didn't say 20 million companies with over 1000 employees, just "20 million companies."
I really hope this is some sort of sarcasm or parody, coward. If you're serious, I pity you.
I'd blame it on DOPAMINE
Casteism
This is bad data in so many ways. The first one is in the summary. You never ever compare wages or companies across industries and expect anything but nonsense numbers. I want to know if female CEOs in home health care make more than male CEO companies in home health care for example. There are other problems here, like using 'revenue per employee' as a useful number. This is beyond ridiculous. Male hating feminists used these techniques to distort and widen the media reported wage gap for years.
You might have also heard this: "25% of women in college will be raped. " Another completely false bad data point. Using bad reporting and a bad definition of rape. I grew up around this male hating culture that told me I and every male was a rapist and other male hate attacks, I heard this starting in the 90s. Fuck you FUD spreading. Here is a fun fact; most feminist organizations are staffed with lesbians. I've looked into this, true story. One day the vast majority of women are going to regret selling themselves out to a minority hate group.