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?
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
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.
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?
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.
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!