Are Women the Solution?
EmailI recently blogged about the provocative thesis that more women at the top of investment banks might have prevented the economic crisis. Nick Kristof started debate with a terrific column–and it’s been great fodder for heated discussions in my virtual and real worlds. But probably more critical at this point is whether women might actually play a special role in the recovery. That’s why a recent piece in the Financial Times caught my eye–"Why women managers shine in a downturn."
I would have thought they might–but luckily Michel Ferrary can do better than that. He actually conducted a research project on companies in France, and found that the more women in a company’s management in 2008, the less the share price fell.
And–the only large company whose share price rose–Hermes–has heavily female management. One French bank has handled the crisis well–and it has 38 percent female management.
What does this mean for recovery? In bad times the author explains, financial markets value companies that take fewer risks and more stable more highly. And again, as the Kristof piece and others pointed out, there are many studies now that show that women tend to manage differently than men do. We are more risk-averse and focused on the long-term. Having more of us around balances risk.
In our upcoming book, "Womenonimcs" we detail plenty of evidence that the female management style is of enormous value in the 21st century economy: we communicate well, we motivate well, we reach across differences to find consensus, we listen. This crisis seems to be highlighting a new dimension of our value–a more cautious style.
Of course not all women are risk-averse, and not all men are risk-takers. But the evidence continues to pile up: a mix of management styles and genders is not only a morally good thing, it’s a financially good thing. It makes business sense.
Most interesting to me as a reporter though, are the many questions this raises: would firms comprised of all women tend to be too cautious at times? In a strong economy, do female managers miss opportunities for fear of taking risks? Are there clear lessons that each gender can learn from the other’s management style, if indeed they are that different?
- Claire
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
We’d be in worse trouble if they are anythjing like my wife. She’s why we stay in debt!
Posted by: Rick | March 6, 2009, 3:01 pm 3:01 pm
You raise some very interesting points. I wouldn’t be surprised if further research concludes that balance of agressive and conservative managements yields the greatest longterm results. Unfortunately, US firms tend to value short term gimmicks (mortgage backed securities) over long term strategy (research and development).
Posted by: Nichole | March 6, 2009, 3:09 pm 3:09 pm
When I was growing up, my mother handled the family finances. My ran a small business, but she controlled all the money. They both liked it that way because she’s a trained accountant, and my dad wasn’t the type to watch his pennies. He was the first to admit that. Thanks to my mother’s good sense, they retired very comfortably. My dad always told people he’d have nothing if it wasn’t for my mom, and he’s right.
Posted by: Janet | March 6, 2009, 3:14 pm 3:14 pm
When God made Man, she was only practising.
Posted by: beto | March 6, 2009, 3:29 pm 3:29 pm
There have been several articles on this same topic that deal specifically with Icelan, and the crash there, and how women have taken over as a result, because the men were ultimately responsible. The women are now cleaning up their mess in Iceland, and it looks like we will have to do it here, too.
Unfortunately, women are not popular in the old boy’s club called Washington DC.
Perhaps its time women voters realized this, and started voting women in.
Posted by: Indievoter | March 6, 2009, 8:09 pm 8:09 pm
It sounds nice, but actually Ron Paul is the solution.
Posted by: Huh | March 8, 2009, 5:28 pm 5:28 pm
Didn’t we try this, to vote women in???
Hillary and Sarah both got smeared by Obama the sexist.
I will never forget just how terrible Obama was on these two.
P.S. You know how to keep someone from running against you in four years, nominate her as Sec. Of State. That move was all about Obama and protecting him.
Posted by: Krissy | March 9, 2009, 8:38 am 8:38 am
If I was going to train a person for a management position and the pool upon which I was to draw was made up of unseasoned manager-trainees, I would lean towards a woman who had raised kids through their teenage years, ceteris paribus. Other than that, the above premise is sexist nonsense; it reminds me of the adage: “Women, the new men.”
Posted by: Dude | March 10, 2009, 2:44 am 2:44 am
You make many valid points that really warrant thought and investigation. New century, new thinking?
Posted by: Joanne | March 10, 2009, 9:14 am 9:14 am
I think the age of men will slowly deplete the more women hit the workforce. My husband never complained when I made more money than he did, and it didn’t bother him that I handled the finances and bills that came in. Due to lay-offs, we are having to relocate. I have stayed behind to pack up the house while he went out west to get another job, which he has done. It is hard caring for two households but with him staying with family there and me here we are managing. He always told everyone when he was in the Navy that if it weren’t for me, he would have nothing to come home to.Said he always came home to a bigger house, more money and a house that ran smoothly. He is back to work and it is a matter of time before I am too, and he won’t have a problem when I continue the budget and get things back on track. I managed to put enough in savings to live off in a crisis and it will see us through the next few months if need be. Managing a budget isn’t hard and I think women are natural at balancing acts than men. Afterall, we can multi-task more than men. Besides, as the saying goes, behind every good man, there is a good woman…We may have been silent for awhile but we are voicing our view and opinions everyday. As someone who was in the management field, I was promoted on abilities, and effort, and not gender. I took classes to further my career, and gained a lot more experience than most. I think women are more empowered now than they ever were before and could very easily run this country as well as any male provided they have the compassion and the guts to see it through.
Posted by: Karol | March 10, 2009, 2:57 pm 2:57 pm
Per statistics maintained and published by the US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for calendar year 2007, men accounted for 92%, and women for only 8%, of employment fatalities. Indeed, as expressly observed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Men continued to record a DISPROPORTIONATE share of fatalities relative to their employment in 2007.” Why has ABC News turned a blind eye toward that stark REALITY? Shouldn’t the public be better educated about that enormous gender gap (perhaps “chasm” is the more apt word), and shouldn’t our government (and for that matter anyone truly committed to the principle of gender equity) champion the cause of eliminating that gap?
Posted by: Larry | March 11, 2009, 7:06 pm 7:06 pm
Claire, you write: “In our upcoming book, “Womenomics” we detail plenty of evidence that the female management style is of enormous value in the 21st century economy: we communicate well, we motivate well, we reach across differences to find consensus, we listen. This crisis seems to be highlighting a new dimension of our value–a more cautious style.” Curiously, the sex-based stereotyping that feminists of a generation ago vehemently condemned is embraced by you with unrestrained vigor — provided of course that it portrays women as specially gifted and specially virtuous. Call it by any other name, it is what it is: SEXIST. (In that you are a woman, it is also shamelessly self-laudatory.)
Posted by: Larry | March 11, 2009, 9:10 pm 9:10 pm
I honestly believe that we need both men and women. People are people and if everyone would just do the right thing all of the time or most of the time then we would all be successful.
Posted by: Elena Esquivel | March 12, 2009, 1:26 am 1:26 am
I believe that we need men and women. People are people and if all do the right thing all of the time or most of the time, then we would all be successful.
Posted by: Elena Esquivel | March 12, 2009, 1:31 am 1:31 am
I think it all comes down to obviously determining who is best qualified for the job and when it comes to getting companies to act ethically, they require a great deal of critical thinking skills and be willing to act upon them. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for more women in politics..throughout history we have come in second compared to men. We are objectified daily (as evidenced in a poster or two in this forum). However, how will we measure who will be fair-minded?
Posted by: Jennifer | March 17, 2009, 10:00 am 10:00 am
“Barack Obama has perfected a three-step maneuver that could never even be attempted by a politician lacking his rhetorical skill or cool cynicism. First: Denounce your presidential predecessor for a given policy, energizing your party’s base and capitalizing on his abiding unpopularity. Second: Pretend to have reversed that policy upon taking office with a symbolic act or high-profile statement. Third: Adopt a version of that same policy, knowing that it’s the only way to govern responsibly or believing that doing otherwise is too difficult.”
This week’s example is Obama’s grandstanding over $165 million in bonuses paid to executives of AIG, which received billions in federal bailout money. He feigned outrage: “How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?” But his Treasury Department knew about the bonuses — which amount to roughly 55 cents per American — ages ago. He also knows there isn’t much the government can do legally to claw the money back.
Posted by: chiefclown | March 25, 2009, 8:59 am 8:59 am
We need to pass the ERA in America. We preach to the world and we still do not have laws to protect and give womenequal rights in the constitution..
There are 15 states that have not ratified the amendment, WE NEED ONLY 3 MORE!! Let’s get the Equal Rights Amendment passed!
Posted by: ERA needs passing! | March 25, 2009, 9:05 am 9:05 am
Nobody knows for how long or at what expense, but so far, the people remain silent and Washington continues to profitably interpret that silence as broad-based consent.
At this late date, I have no idea what will wake up the average American or how they might react once finally awake and ready to engage in self-governance. However, I am sure about two things…
When they finally do awake, they are going to be really angry…
And, the anti-American left won’t let up until then…
The clock isn’t just ticking. Time has already run out as of the 2008 election. Washington DC is currently dismantling America, individual right by individual right, in an unprecedented massive multi-faceted assault on all things American.
If you are not familiar with the Democratic Socialists of America or their legislative branch, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, I strongly suggest that you take time to learn them well. They are in charge of your nation. This is who the average American is up against and they are a very well funded and organized enemy of the state.
You will not be able to take your country back without putting these two organizations out of business. The longer you wait, the tougher the battle, the higher the price.
Clearly, the organizational skills of the average American are equal only to that of the stumbling bumbling Republican Party. Fragmented, distracted and disorganized, the people are no match for the leftist juggernaut running roughshod in DC.
The people are lost, so they are losing… The most complex problems require the simplest of solutions. But the average American is so baffled by a daily diet of elitist B.S., that they cannot even see daylight… – When all else fails, return to the basics!
Here’s to the average American waking up in time! – Good luck!
I fear he will do us in – COME ON 2012!
Posted by: PAY ATTENTION | March 26, 2009, 12:06 pm 12:06 pm
If women are so strong and capable (of course if it has to be said ‘Over & Over’ is it really true,…… or an attempt at influencing societal agendas ! ) then why do they need a ‘Womannomics’ section here (isn’t this just another dose of ‘Coddling’ Affirmative Action ). Do women need to be ‘Coddled & Cradled’ with everything they do ??!!. Can they only succeed if the situation is ‘very favorable’ (one might say that does not show Strength).
Posted by: Mr. Reality | April 7, 2009, 1:03 pm 1:03 pm
These business women are highly motivated, career driven, extremely intelligent women who have excelled under constant scrutiny for many years in a male-dominated world. What else would you expect but that they are the best, most responsible CEOs in their sectors?
It’s not that they are women– it’s that getting to where they are AS a woman is a strong marker of their worthiness to lead.
Posted by: Cara Wilcox | April 8, 2009, 9:45 pm 9:45 pm
are you implying that women arent easily corrupted like men are?
hmm….
martha stewart comes to my mind…
Posted by: tom | April 23, 2009, 12:43 am 12:43 am