Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Women fill fewer than 10% of the top CEO jobs


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#16    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,897 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 11 December 2012 - 05:44 PM

Quote

you just appear to be fearful


Fearful? How about frustrated? Frustrated that people are accusing/implying that others are sexist as a result of bs like the opening post.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#17    little_dreamer

little_dreamer

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,315 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Deep South

  • We did not understand it all, but somehow we survived.

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:36 AM

What is the solution?  More women need to start their own companies!  Starting at the top is the easiest way.

I am another anonymous face in the crowd. I am just another tiny wheel in the machinery of the world I live in.

#18    Render

Render

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,080 posts
  • Joined:23 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:47 AM

People Prefer Leaders With More Masculine Voices, Even in Feminine Leadership Roles

Quote

Klofstad explains, "We often do not consider how our biology can influence our decision making. The results of this study show that voice pitch -- a physiological characteristic -- can affect how we select our leaders."

http://www.scienceda...21212205606.htm

Again, nothing to do with competence. Something worth to think about.


#19    EllJay

EllJay

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,686 posts
  • Joined:26 Dec 2009
  • Gender:Male

  • Today We Are Creating Tomorrow's Yesterday

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:57 AM

View PostLilly, on 10 December 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

It's one thing if there aren't any qualified females for CEO positions...it's quite another thing if qualified females are being passed over simply because they are females. Personally, I suspect it's probably a combination of the two.

In the final analysis: It's still very much 'a man's world' in corporate America.

I think it also might be the qualities that it takes to be a CEO in today's big business - a psychotic, power-hungry, OCD-greedy, heartless, scumsucking son of a b**** that would sell his grandma for a dime and **** over anyone and anything that comes in their way.

That trait isn't too common amongst the female side of humanity, at least not that prevalent as in the male part.

"Opinions are like a**holes, everyone seems to have one" - Dirty Harry

"All those who believe in psychokinesis, raise my hand... "

"I have a black belt in Feng Shui, the subtle martial art. I go home to you and move a lamp and a chair... twelve years later you lay there on the floor with broken kneecaps and destitute."

#20    Render

Render

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,080 posts
  • Joined:23 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 December 2012 - 11:50 AM

View PostStellar, on 11 December 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

Why? Because I disagree with you?


Nono. Because of this:

View PostStellar, on 11 December 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

No, the "problem" is people who believe that every job, every position must be staffed with 50% males or 50% females, and any deviation is simply sexist and must be "fixed". Why is this a problem? Because then people who arent fit for the job are chosen in order to meet some imaginary "quota". Thats why. Reality check: There are certain jobs that are more attractive to men than to women. Why? Not because of sex necessarily, but because of culture. As a result, there's more of a pool of men to chose from. Thats point number 1. Point number 2: It is possible, and may just happen, that out of a pool of 50 men and 50 women, more men are deemed suitable for a certain job than women. That's reality. It's not sexist. What's sexist is accusing others of sexism simply because 40 men and only 10 women were deemed suitable for a job.

Why don't we run another study? How about women in the infantry? I know first hand that there are vastly more men in the infantry here than women, despite there being the same amount of women "qualified" for the job as men in society. Is that also the result of sexism?

You don't seem to understand it's not about this. You're trying to reduce to topic to something you think it's all about. It's not.
It's again, simply put about :

Quote

“Companies today know they need to increase innovation,” said Marilyn Nagel, CEO of Watermark. “They need talent on top that is tuned into customer needs. They need directors and executives who are strong, capable, qualified leaders in every sense.
“However, while so many are bemoaning the lack of these qualities in candidates for their top positions — they are overlooking the women right in front of them who can deliver all of these qualities in spades,” Nagel added.

Not about incompetent women that should be chosen for their gender...no point in trying to bring it back to that topic. You either understand this or you don't. I hope you do now.

View PostStellar, on 11 December 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

Fearful? How about frustrated? Frustrated that people are accusing/implying that others are sexist as a result of bs like the opening post.

See, you are very overemotional about this.
And it's kinda funny because you turned this into something which is waaay of the topic.
Reread the quote of the article if you do not see this, until you do.


#21    Render

Render

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,080 posts
  • Joined:23 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 December 2012 - 11:53 AM

View PostEllJay, on 13 December 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

I think it also might be the qualities that it takes to be a CEO in today's big business - a psychotic, power-hungry, OCD-greedy, heartless, scumsucking son of a b**** that would sell his grandma for a dime and **** over anyone and anything that comes in their way.

That trait isn't too common amongst the female side of humanity, at least not that prevalent as in the male part.

Well that's also a problem. This common perception that a CEO has to be a person who qualifies the terms you propose.
It's not an absolute.

It's been said that women are better at seeing the whole instead of getting lost in the details. And are better at picking out the best person for the job because they aren't influenced that much by "wanting to choose your buddy" because they don't get lost in some kind of bromance.
Companies aren't the most efficient thing in the world, there is room for improvement. So saying you have to qualify to those terms is maybe the reason why companies aren't the best they can be.

Thinking out of the box is a good thing...


#22    Render

Render

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,080 posts
  • Joined:23 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 December 2012 - 11:56 AM

View Postlittle_dreamer, on 12 December 2012 - 03:36 AM, said:

What is the solution?  More women need to start their own companies!  Starting at the top is the easiest way.

That could be a solution yes. Because it is well known that children during certain ages consciously and unconsciouly look for role models. If girls would see more women at the top it could become easier to picture themselves at the top instead of at the secretary desk.
This is also a big issue of course.


#23    Taun

Taun

    A dashing moose about town...

  • Member
  • 6,301 posts
  • Joined:19 May 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tornado Alley (Oklahoma)

Posted 13 December 2012 - 12:23 PM

So if 10% of California's 400 CEO's (in the study) are female, that equals 40 Female CEO's...

Lets look at Europe -

"... only four women chair the board of a European company and three are CEOs, three of these seven business leaders are found in the UK (Baroness Hogg is Chair of 3i Group; Sarah Thomson is joint CEO Thomson Intermedia and Dame Marjorie Scardino is CEO of Pearson)."

http://www.managemen...-boardrooms.asp


So I would say that California is ahead of the game...


#24    Render

Render

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,080 posts
  • Joined:23 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 December 2012 - 12:42 PM

View PostTaun, on 13 December 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

So if 10% of California's 400 CEO's (in the study) are female, that equals 40 Female CEO's...

Lets look at Europe -

"... only four women chair the board of a European company and three are CEOs, three of these seven business leaders are found in the UK (Baroness Hogg is Chair of 3i Group; Sarah Thomson is joint CEO Thomson Intermedia and Dame Marjorie Scardino is CEO of Pearson)."

http://www.managemen...-boardrooms.asp


So I would say that California is ahead of the game...

It's not about whose doing worse ....

The whole world is guilty of this..


#25    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,897 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 13 December 2012 - 05:44 PM

Quote

Again, nothing to do with competence. Something worth to think about.


Irrelevant. If thats what the customer prefers, then why should the CEO chose a replacement that can't provide that?

Quote


Not about incompetent women that should be chosen for their gender...no point in trying to bring it back to that topic. You either understand this or you don't. I hope you do now.


The connotation associated with incompetent is misleading. A woman can have the "qualifications" that make her "competent" but not have other attributes that are desirable for the position, making her "incompetent" in that aspect. Similarly, you can have a pool of qualified men yet none of them will be chosen because they dont have other necessary attributes.

You keep bolding and quoting that one line from the article. How on earth does the reporter know if they're "qualified" for the jobs? And I'm not talking about simply academic qualifications, I'm talking about all attributes? Does this reporter presume to know all of these females better than their own bosses do?

Quote

Well that's also a problem. This common perception that a CEO has to be a person who qualifies the terms you propose.
It's not an absolute.

It's been said that women are better at seeing the whole instead of getting lost in the details. And are better at picking out the best person for the job because they aren't influenced that much by "wanting to choose your buddy" because they don't get lost in some kind of bromance.
Companies aren't the most efficient thing in the world, there is room for improvement. So saying you have to qualify to those terms is maybe the reason why companies aren't the best they can be.

Thinking out of the box is a good thing...


Lmfao. "Women are better at this" "Women are better at that" and yet you're complaining that more men were chosen to be CEOs because they may be "better" than women in that regard?

Quote

The whole world is guilty of this..



I don't see any reason to be guilty of anything here. Thats my point. There are imbalances between the sexes in certain jobs. That doesn't necessarily mean it's mans/society's fault for being sexist, nor does it mean that it should be fixed.

Whoever is choosing someone to be CEO should be able to do so for any reason he'd like.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#26    Render

Render

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,080 posts
  • Joined:23 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:45 PM

View PostStellar, on 13 December 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

Irrelevant. If thats what the customer prefers, then why should the CEO chose a replacement that can't provide that?


Please put in some effort and maybe read the article first. It's not about what the customer wants. It's about this biological thing inside of us that programs us to think a male sounding voice is better for jobs where ppl are in charge. Meaning, competence is again overlooked in this issue. And this could be an extra reason why this gender equality in the workspace issue is so challenging.

Quote

The connotation associated with incompetent is misleading. A woman can have the "qualifications" that make her "competent" but not have other attributes that are desirable for the position, making her "incompetent" in that aspect. Similarly, you can have a pool of qualified men yet none of them will be chosen because they dont have other necessary attributes.

You keep bolding and quoting that one line from the article. How on earth does the reporter know if they're "qualified" for the jobs? And I'm not talking about simply academic qualifications, I'm talking about all attributes? Does this reporter presume to know all of these females better than their own bosses do?


Qualfied, competent, ... man you can turn the words as much as  you want, it doesn't change the fact that there still, in this day and age, is no equality in the workspace.
It's like your bending yourself over backwards just so you don't have to face facts. Like this just has to be condoned because "it's the way it is". I'd suggest you find a time machine and go back to the 19th century as well.

Quote

Lmfao. "Women are better at this" "Women are better at that" and yet you're complaining that more men were chosen to be CEOs because they may be "better" than women in that regard?

Ok. If you don't even get that i was commenting on the fact that the poster above wrote a bunch of terms that he and many others automatically link with being male and a CEO, then i can't help you.
Females have been given terms as well, as i was trying to point out. Went right over your head apparantly.

Quote

I don't see any reason to be guilty of anything here. Thats my point. There are imbalances between the sexes in certain jobs. That doesn't necessarily mean it's mans/society's fault for being sexist, nor does it mean that it should be fixed.

The fact that very abled women that are right for the job, any job, are being overlooked because of their gender just isn't right. Get with the times already. Not to mention the fact that in most parts of the world, if not all, women still make less money than men in the same position, for the exact same kind of work. That's not merely an imbalance, that's unjust.

Quote

Whoever is choosing someone to be CEO should be able to do so for any reason he'd like.

If a lot of ppl are dependent on a job at the company, the most fit person for the job should be chosen. The fact that many still second guess women in this is..well..passé.

But of course, it's very clear I won't be able to say anything to make you think on a higher level. So just leave it.
I just hope others who read this can understand the troubles with this and are able to actually think about it more thoroughly.

Edited by Render, 13 December 2012 - 10:47 PM.


#27    Michelle

Michelle

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,765 posts
  • Joined:03 Jan 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tennessee

  • Eleanor Roosevelt: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Posted 13 December 2012 - 11:10 PM

View PostStellar, on 13 December 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

Whoever is choosing someone to be CEO should be able to do so for any reason he'd like.

Haha...I'd like to point out to you that you assume the person doing the hiring is a man. Which the general assumption is, because men hire men first and they would be in the position to do so. B)


#28    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,897 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 14 December 2012 - 12:59 PM

View PostMichelle, on 13 December 2012 - 11:10 PM, said:



Haha...I'd like to point out to you that you assume the person doing the hiring is a man. Which the general assumption is, because men hire men first and they would be in the position to do so. B)

Hahah. Well, according to the article, it's a safe assumption!

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#29    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,897 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 14 December 2012 - 01:30 PM

I was going to save my reply to you until lunch when I'm on my laptop, but I just couldn't resist answering this part:

Quote

The fact that very abled women that are right for the job, any job, are being overlooked because of their gender just isn't right.

You don't know if they're right for the job. You don't know them.  You and the article are simply assuming they are because they're women. That is what I'm against. You claim sexism, yet you're just as guilty of sexism.

Are you really presumptuous enough to believe that you know these women better than their own employers?

And news flash: choosing an employee of any sort is more than just picking someone with the right letters after his name and job experience. If that's all that it took, then interviews wouldn't ever be conducted. You hire a person for who they are and the traits they possess. If a retiring CEO believes that any successful CEO *must* be aggressive, then that is his right. If out of the pool of qualified applicants for the position, there's a man that's more aggressive than a woman, and the CEO chooses him as a replacement, there is nothing wrong or sexist about it. If the woman had been that aggressive or more, then he would have chose her.

You disagree on what personal traits are important? Fine. When you're hiring someone, you can pick whoever it is thy fits *your* image. But you are arrogant enough to try to tell these successful people what they should and shouldnt look for in an employee? Get out of here.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#30    Myles

Myles

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,897 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 December 2012 - 01:35 PM

Since I believe the most competent person should be hired, I don't think anything should be done to push women into this postition.   Quota's can force hiring a lesser competant person.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users