Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×
Businesses

Video Female-Run Companies Often do Better Than Male-Run Ones (Video) 271

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.

Viktoria: If a company has over 1000 employees it has 18% more profitability if it is run by a woman.

Robin: Okay. Why aren’t you running a big company?

Viktoria: Why am I not running a big company? Well... not yet.

Robin: So you feel sooner or later that will be you.

Viktoria: You know, the future is full of mysteries.

Robin: Okay, this survey. How did you choose the people to survey?

Viktoria: Mintigo is a predictive marketing company and we have a database of about 20 million companies so we actually went to our own database and our own information and we pulled the companies from there. So we didn’t go and survey anyone per se but this is data that has been sourced from all over the web. We separated it out female and male CEOs in our database, and that is a really good representative sample, and frankly it is most of the data you can get off the companies in the US we have. So it is a very comprehensive study.

Robin: 20 million? Now I have read over and over again and seen it in my own family that the majority – a slight majority of really small companies – are woman-owned. Part of that, in my family, is because most of the hairdressers are women. I mean, did you get down that far at any point?

Viktoria: So I mean we weren’t really analyzing companies, you know, that are one person or a few people. I would say that just to your same point, there are research studies that say more women start companies but few of them make it to $15 million revenue because for whatever reason, right, you can probably pull up a thousand different ones -- whether it is because their gender, or because the type of company they are founding.

Robin: Okay, but let’s go back to the large companies. Is any of this going to get boards of directors to start specifically recruiting women as executives, do you think?

Viktoria: I think it should. I think what the data shows is that there is you can look it one of two ways: Either that 17% of companies are run by women, and the women who made it to the top are just higher quality than the average man who made it to the top because there were fewer positions for them. Or you can take off in a different way, and the data supports this actually, where women have certain skills that they can offer that are really important to big companies, whether it is communication, whether it is media, whether it is social, whether it is stronger HR, we are seeing all these things in those companies run by women and that should be important.

Robin: Okay. I don’t know if you are qualified or want to speak about specifics—Marissa Mayer, Yahoo!

Viktoria: Sure.

Robin: What about her?

Viktoria: What about? What specifically are you interested in, how she fits into this?

Robin: Yeah. Do you think she is going to do good, or is she going to blow it, like all other Yahoo! CEOs before her for the last five years?

Viktoria: Well, I think we will see. That’s just the first part of my answer. The other part is that she has really specific skills in the areas that Yahoo! is lacking in and unlike previous CEOS she can dig in pretty deep and move the company forward. It is kind of... it is one data point though, right, it is Yahoo! it is a very unique environment. And Marissa offers certain things just because of who she is, but not necessarily because she is a woman.

Robin: Okay that’s a good point and a good answer. So let me ask you, that leads me right on to the next question, and that is, do technology companies because here this is on Slashdot which is a techie site, women in technology companies: Easier? Harder? I mean, there is so much misogyny in the tech business. You know better than I do, right?

Viktoria: Sure.

Robin: Yeah, so does that make a difference?

Viktoria: Misogyny? Well of course that makes a difference. I am going to start a little further away and come closer to your question. About tech, what we see is it just supports the hypothesis that companies that are more advanced and are more progressive basically do better. You see that geographically, where there are more women in leadership positions on the coasts than in the center of the country. You see that also in terms of less traditional industries so for example, many factory and construction companies have very very few women, but things like healthcare... and actually tech is not the worst industry when you look at it across the board; tech is kind of middling. You know, there are much worse environments actually out there, if you want to talk about where the biggest problems are, they are actually not in tech -- which is very surprising for a lot of people.

I think part of it, and you think about it from the perspective of, you know, is it a pipeline problem? I think it is two things, right, you need more people, more women going into STEM kind of careers, that is engineering and sciences, but you also need them to be supported in that area, right, so they need to not have the rug pulled out from under them and leave and either go be moms or go to some other industry. So I think if you look at the data about 30 years ago, there were more women than now; twice as many women going into STEM careers then than there are now because those people have been told that oh it is really terrible, it is really scary, don’t do it. The answer is you should do it, you should do it, and I think the environment right now is really right for those people to get the support they need.

Robin: So you are saying even if a few guys -- the basement dwellers with acne guys -- go nyuk nyuk nyuk if you as a... you know, let’s face it, you're an attractive young female in business, what you are saying is you should slap them or ignore them and just drive on, am I right?

Viktoria: Ignore them, move on it is one option sure, I think the other one is to kind of confront them. Sometimes that doesn’t get you the result you want, but I think the more times you try, the more likely you are to succeed and if you can find people to support you and mentors that will move you forward, right, and see you what you are worth, and I think those are the things you should focus on and not the naysayers. Because no matter who you are, you always have someone who is trying to bring you down, if you are doing well especially.

Robin: Always happens. You can have a beard and be an old fat man and it happens. Trust me. How would I know that? But no, seriously, to move just a little bit away from the center and away from the survey that brought this on, how about finding a mentor? How does one do it? I’ve never looked. Well, I had one, several but you know...

Viktoria: Well, that’s one way to do it, right? Sometimes they fall into your lap, but the other part is, you know, keep an eye out, look for people who have had the career path that you would want to have and ask them lots of questions. People love talking about their experience and themselves and if you let them do that then I think they will want to mentor you, and if you are inspiring and motivated, people love communicating with you, you have a fire inside of you, and you can share that with them, and you are getting knowledge from them so it is a two-way street, there’s actually something that each person is getting out of it. I think it is not just I am going to take, take, take from this person, but I am forming a lifelong relationship hopefully with someone who I can offer something to, and they can offer something to me.

Robin: Alright. Let’s move back to our tech people again. We are talking right here, you and me, to an overwhelmingly male audience, overwhelmingly I mean like it is reflective of the technology industry and of the hands-on programmers and sysadmins and such. Overwhelmingly male. If you were one of these guys, and suddenly your new boss is a woman, what should you do differently -- if anything?

Viktoria: I don’t think it is so much about doing something differently. I think if you look at two different people, you are going to treat them differently whether one is a man and one is a woman, or both are men, or both are women. I think it comes down to empathy... what’s hard for that person and where are they going to need you to be more flexible, and you know, I think that works across the board whether she is a mom, so you know on some days, she leaves earlier and some days she comes in later, but if she is getting the job done that you shouldn’t be judged for that. But I think the flip side for a woman is that she needs to understand that maybe this man she is working with has never had a female boss. So it is both people being empathetic and trying to understand and trying to basically make the best out of any situation they are in.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Female-Run Companies Often do Better Than Male-Run Ones (Video)

Comments Filter:
  • by iONiUM ( 530420 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @05:05PM (#48983433) Journal

    And why the fuck does it auto-play when I open the article?

    • Because there's two extremes on the Web: articles without any fucking photos and articles with videos that auto-play even though some of us don't want to waste our bandwidth to load a video we're not going to watch in the first place.

      • by OzPeter ( 195038 )

        even though some of us don't want to waste our bandwidth to load a video we're not going to watch in the first place.

        Except you can't do that because even if you hit "Pause" the video eagerly downloads the content and stalks you, just waiting for you to hit "Play"

      • Amen. I hate news sites that have article text that insist on loading and running news clips while you read. I'm trying to read damn it shut the f up! Who the hell thought that was good user design? We need to drop them off in Syria.

        • A couple months ago I chewed out Yahoo News for that shit. But theirs wasn't at the top of the page, or over in the right corner. Basically I said "What fucking asshole put an auto-playing video 12 screens down from the top of the page? You fucking morons."

          I might have gotten their attention, because I don't remember seeing one like that since.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      There's a fucking video because everyone knows that women can't succeed at anything without leveraging their fucking sex appeal. That's the fuck why.

      • Well, maybe if she was sporting a bit more cleavage..but as it is, nothing sexy about her on that video.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          I have it paused at 1:06 right now, just because I got tired of hearing her voice by then.

          It looks like she could give a good blowjob, but she'd be whiney about it first.

    • There's a video?

      I recommend NoScript. Or FlashBlock. Or, well, there's like a million options.

    • I do care about the f'in abysmal quality of it..
    • by plopez ( 54068 )

      So you can't say you didn't RTFA

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @05:06PM (#48983447)

    Wildly abused. [sba.gov]

    • The link points to a small business program. The article mentions that the numbers apply to companies with over 1000 people, which is surely not small businesses.

      That said, there's no apparent normalisation for sector. I wonder what the results would look like on a sector by sector basis.

  • Clickbait? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @05:06PM (#48983449)

    SJW, please....

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @05:06PM (#48983451)

    feminists are the worst kind of ignorantly hypocritical sexists... and we can all agree, SEXISTS ARE THE WORST.

  • Sexist article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by r.freeman ( 2944629 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @05:10PM (#48983479)
    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?
    • by hcs_$reboot ( 1536101 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @05:21PM (#48983611)
      Sexist question: would you have clicked on the video if the girl wouldn't have been cute?
    • Re:Sexist article (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @05:24PM (#48983641)

      No see if it was stating "male owned companies do better" it would be blamed on patriarchy instead of suggesting men might be better at something. However, if women do better, then it's brain neurology or hormones, or psychological differences or some character trait that women have more of.. It's not allowed to show men as being better in any area while playing fair. Socialist 'justice.'

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by quantaman ( 517394 )

      So confounders may mean the study is useless (ie women CEOs more common in high revenue industries), but if it performance gap does exist there are some useful narratives.

      For all the groups, women, homosexuals, blacks, etc, it is known that they are under-represented as CEOs and that they experience some level of employment discrimination (or at least disadvantage).

      If black or gay CEOs underperform it may be the case that there is a shortage of talent occurring earlier in the corporate ladder. Fixing that r

      • Re:Sexist article (Score:5, Insightful)

        by david_thornley ( 598059 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @06:59PM (#48984491)

        If a group faces discrimination, the ones that make it through the discrimination are likely to be unusually good. I'd expect the average woman to be better than the average man in male-dominated fields, and the average man to be better than the average woman in female-dominated fields.

  • Totally Worthless (Score:5, Insightful)

    by danheskett ( 178529 ) <danheskett@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @05:10PM (#48983483)

    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.

    Try the whole study again with profit, or at least, net income, and it might interesting.

  • HP & Xerox (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nutria ( 679911 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @05:10PM (#48983491)

    Run by women, not so great revenue per employee.

    • Run by women, not so great revenue per employee.

      What are you talking about? When you freeze salaries, decrease the employee count, cut the company in half and throw away the half that went bad, you better have increased the revenue per each remaining employee at the very least.

      Mitt Romney is also very good at increasing the revenue per employee. Does that also mean he's a woman? Or does he have a gender issue?

  • Terrible (Score:2, Troll)

    by NaCh0 ( 6124 )

    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.

    • Isn't she in front of the camera rather than behind it? The off-camera voice seems to be male, at least based on the first 10 seconds of video.

      On the plus side, if I have to watch a video I'd rather it be of an attractive young woman than of a neck bearded Unix admin.

    • 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 [mintigo.com], 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.
  • 'often do' (Score:4, Insightful)

    by YrWrstNtmr ( 564987 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @05:11PM (#48983501)
    And often don't. WTF is this?
  • by Rooked_One ( 591287 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @05:12PM (#48983511) Journal
    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?" [mintigo.com] 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?
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Same here. I felt like I was watching Youtube or a "Vine".

      Amateur grade video warning signs:
      1. Shakicam
      2. Audio was taken with the video camera in a noisy environment instead of a dedicated lapel mic in a closed studio. AMPLIFY THERMAL NOISE!
      3. Video resolution was crap.
      4. The guy asking the questions sounded like he was on the "2nd hour" of his diet and was considering dipping his "victim" in ranch dressing. Backroom Casting Couch conducts better interviews than this guy!

      Bet money she used Excel's "CORREL"

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      I count, let's see...


      1. Sorry miss.
      2. You might have a fancy degree,
      3. but you're 23, maybe 24 years old, with little to no real world experience.
      4. She's the only person out of 8 "leadership" roles that has a vageen.
      5. just know it all bitches.

      5 massive chips on your shoulder. Possibly shoulders. I can't see how you could have that many on just one shoulder. There are many things wrong with the article but those aren't any of them.

  • Another ... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @05:14PM (#48983545)

    ... data point [dailymail.co.uk].

    Of course, there could be a difference between 'run by' and 'employing only'.

  • by ashpool7 ( 18172 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @05:15PM (#48983557) Homepage Journal

    ... we should ignore the trolling TFA and concentrate this discussion on the autoplaying video?

  • by OverlordQ ( 264228 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @05:16PM (#48983561) Journal

    They later went bankrupt [dailymail.co.uk]. OFC it's Dailyfail, so take it with a grain of salt.

    • "In hindsight, I can see I should have been more strict. My idealism was my downfall because I tried to see the best in people - I was convinced they would behave as they were treated, so I treated everyone kindly."

      "Though Sarah, my general manager, was present, she refused to get involved because she didn't want to be the 'bad cop'."

      The failure had nothing to do with the fact that they were women. It had to do with the fact that management didn't manage the employees. Example after example of offenses th

  • by OzPeter ( 195038 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @05:17PM (#48983573)

    Fuck Off

    Having them makes Bennet look desirable as a replacement. At least I can see from front page to avoid his rants.

  • 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
    • Unless you've done some singular value decomposition and principle component analysis

      Why do both? One usually uses the SVD to compute the PCA, unless you have substantially more data than dimensions. Besides, I'm not sure how dimensionality reduction would help.

  • 1) As per the old adage, a women has to work twice as hard to get half the credit. Or to remove the hyperbole, mediocre women don't become CEOS, only the very best do. So you are in effect comparing the top 5% of women CEO candidates, all of whom became CEO's, to the top 20% of male CEO candidates, all of whom became CEOs.

    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

  • by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @05:29PM (#48983679)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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
  • Special treatment (Score:4, Insightful)

    by watermark ( 913726 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @06:41PM (#48984341)

    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?

  • 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?"

  • by Livius ( 318358 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @07:22PM (#48984659)

    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.
    • 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.

  • 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

  • ^ That is all!
  • by russotto ( 537200 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @09:57PM (#48985717) Journal

    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.

  • by hambone142 ( 2551854 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @10:58PM (#48986077)
    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.

"The medium is the message." -- Marshall McLuhan

Working...