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
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?
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?
... 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.
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.
Why not? While you're at it, may as well go with the flow and tell them that along with sexists, they're racist, homophobic islamophobes too. All non-SJW white males are these days, according to the internet.
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".
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!
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?
calling out hypocrisy is not misogyny
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.
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.
She isn't. I read the transcript - it was pretty banal. And let's face it - the company she works for is run by men, so she doesn't have any first-person insights to contribute. It's about what you'd expect from a "VP of Customer Success" at a marketing biz.
"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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
LMAO! This could be the poster definition of irony.
Let's make like a bird... and get the flock outta here.