Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    In 2003 Norway introduced a law mandating that at least 40% of a company board be composed of women (at a time when the average was 9%).

    Before you ask no, there was no provision regarding "under-representation" of men, so if you wanted you could have an all-female board no questions asked.

    One might wonder what the effect could be of imposing hiring not on the basis of merit but on the basis of genital configuration:

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1364470

    TL; DR: Forcing companies to hire women on their boards led to boards typically being younger and more inexperienced, which led to significant drops in firm value, deterioration in operating performance, and greater incidence of value destroying acquisitions.


    Moral of the story: Forcing equality rarely turns out well.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nidhoggr)
    In 2003 Norway introduced a law mandating that at least 40% of a company board be composed of women (at a time when the average was 9%).

    Before you ask no, there was no provision regarding "under-representation" of men, so if you wanted you could have an all-female board no questions asked.

    One might wonder what the effect could be of imposing hiring not on the basis of merit but on the basis of genital configuration:

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1364470

    TL; DR: Forcing companies to hire women on their boards led to boards typically being younger and more inexperienced, which led to significant drops in firm value, deterioration in operating performance, and greater incidence of value destroying acquisitions.


    Moral of the story: Forcing equality rarely turns out well.
    Which is why silly feminists realize that the best person for the job should be used, be it a man, a woman, a plant or even a potato, who or what is best for the job, should be used.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nidhoggr)
    In 2003 Norway introduced a law mandating that at least 40% of a company board be composed of women (at a time when the average was 9%).

    Before you ask no, there was no provision regarding "under-representation" of men, so if you wanted you could have an all-female board no questions asked.

    One might wonder what the effect could be of imposing hiring not on the basis of merit but on the basis of genital configuration:

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1364470

    TL; DR: Forcing companies to hire women on their boards led to boards typically being younger and more inexperienced, which led to significant drops in firm value, deterioration in operating performance, and greater incidence of value destroying acquisitions.


    Moral of the story: Forcing equality rarely turns out well.
    I highly doubt there would have been no eligible older women to choose from whatsoever. What is more likely is that they hired young attractive women to train up whilst sacrificing the company value purely for the sake of eye candy
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    I highly doubt there would have been no eligible older women to choose from whatsoever. What is more likely is that they hired young attractive women to train up whilst sacrificing the company value purely for the sake of eye candy
    Feminist coping mechanics.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nidhoggr)
    Feminist coping mechanics.
    Are you denying that attractiveness plays a part in interview selection?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    Are you denying that attractiveness plays a part in interview selection?
    If I was an employer, and I could pick either the hotter woman or the woman who was actually better for the job I was hiring for, I'd pick the better one.

    Implying that the vast majority of employers did otherwise seems insulting toward their intelligence.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retired_Messiah)
    If I was an employer, and I could pick either the hotter woman or the woman who was actually better for the job I was hiring for, I'd pick the better one.

    Implying that the vast majority of employers did otherwise seems insulting toward their intelligence.
    You are not an employer though, are you?

    http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/ar...rs-less-biased
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    I highly doubt there would have been no eligible older women to choose from whatsoever. What is more likely is that they hired young attractive women to train up whilst sacrificing the company value purely for the sake of eye candy
    Yes, obviously. It couldn't possibly be that gender equality in the work place is still evolving, and the expertise level hasn't settled yet making the female employee pool smaller than in should be. No, gender equality is instantaneous, and the moment you legislate, large numbers of women with experience in all industries just spring out of the ground. Obviously only experienced women were hired in this case is because men are pigs and couldn't conceivably considering hiring a woman for any other reason than because they want to have sex with them.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    Yes, obviously. It couldn't possibly be that gender equality in the work place is still evolving, and the expertise level hasn't settled yet making the female employee pool smaller than in should be. No, gender equality is instantaneous, and the moment you legislate, large numbers of women with experience in all industries just spring out of the ground. Obviously only experienced women were hired in this case is because men are pigs and couldn't conceivably considering hiring a woman for any other reason than because they want to have sex with them.
    I'll ask you the same question, do you think attractiveness makes no difference to an employer? If you think otherwise you are misguided, there are plenty of studies out there affirming that it does make a difference, see my study I posted above
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    I'll ask you the same question, do you think attractiveness makes no difference to an employer? If you think otherwise you are misguided, there are plenty of studies out there affirming that it does make a difference, see my study I posted above
    Attractiveness being a plus factor does not make it the only factor.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    I highly doubt there would have been no eligible older women to choose from whatsoever. What is more likely is that they hired young attractive women to train up whilst sacrificing the company value purely for the sake of eye candy
    You're right. People getting paid millions of pounds, with thousands of jobs and billions in assets resting on their shoulders, chose to sacrifice their work so they could look at pretty women.

    Are you serious?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    You're right. People getting paid millions of pounds, with thousands of jobs and billions in assets resting on their shoulders, chose to sacrifice their work so they could look at pretty women.

    Are you serious?
    They aren't gods or divine beings, they are still human beings at the end of it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    I highly doubt there would have been no eligible older women to choose from whatsoever. What is more likely is that they hired young attractive women to train up whilst sacrificing the company value purely for the sake of eye candy
    The issue is not whether there is an eligible woman but the quantity of women available for such a position. What corporations need to do is not set quotas for female board executives, but ensure that women are going into the right majors, e.g. Finance, and then receiving the relevant training to progress through the ranks. Certain cases of sexism may exist; but that does not equate to an industry-wide issue with gender. Corporations need to produce shareholder value or they will face severe financial repercussions and boards are a key factor in facilitating this process. To choose members of this group simply to satisfy regulatory obligations is foolish for the long-term health of a corporation.

    There is no denying that having more diversity is crucial to an organisation's performance and women are a vital aspect of this. However, too much focus has been placed on the latter stages (e.g. senior executives) and not enough on hiring at a younger age.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    The issue is not whether there is an eligible woman but the quantity of women available for such a position. What corporations need to do is not set quotas for female board executives, but ensure that women are going into the right majors, e.g. Finance, and then receiving the relevant training to progress through the ranks. Certain cases of sexism may exist; but that does not equate to an industry-wide issue with gender. Corporations need to produce shareholder value or they will face severe financial repercussions and boards are a key factor in facilitating this process. To choose members of this group simply to satisfy regulatory obligations is foolish for the long-term health of a corporation.

    There is no denying that having more diversity is crucial to an organisation's performance and women are a vital aspect of this. However, too much focus has been placed on the latter stages (e.g. senior executives) and not enough on hiring at a younger age.
    You speak sense
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    The issue is not whether there is an eligible woman but the quantity of women available for such a position. What corporations need to do is not set quotas for female board executives, but ensure that women are going into the right majors, e.g. Finance, and then receiving the relevant training to progress through the ranks. Certain cases of sexism may exist; but that does not equate to an industry-wide issue with gender. Corporations need to produce shareholder value or they will face severe financial repercussions and boards are a key factor in facilitating this process. To choose members of this group simply to satisfy regulatory obligations is foolish for the long-term health of a corporation.

    There is no denying that having more diversity is crucial to an organisation's performance and women are a vital aspect of this. However, too much focus has been placed on the latter stages (e.g. senior executives) and not enough on hiring at a younger age.
    I concur.

    However, would hiring younger members be a good step? Those who are older often have a the necessary experience to make important decisions on various matters. Surely the younger members would lack that?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    They aren't gods or divine beings, they are still human beings at the end of it.
    You don't need to be a god to do your job properly. You seem to think that men are wild beasts, driven primarily by their uncontrollable urges.

    Of course there's a slight subconscious bias toward more attractive candidates, but there are many, many subconscious biases.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thefatone)
    Which is why silly feminists realize that the best person for the job should be used, be it a man, a woman, a plant or even a potato, who or what is best for the job, should be used.
    I really doubt feminists are concerned with enhancing shareholder value. They put these agenda women in place.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Quotas for any group are counter-productive and hypocritical and just foster more unfairness.

    Women are strong enough and awesome enough to not need quotas in my opinion. There are differences between the sexes and how they behave and perform in the workplace, and that's perfectly okay.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IAmNero)
    I concur.

    However, would hiring younger members be a good step? Those who are older often have a the necessary experience to make important decisions on various matters. Surely the younger members would lack that?
    Oh, absolutely. I was trying to conclude that not enough emphasis is placed on training at a younger stage. Women have a very different set of requirements and skill sets and as such should not get the same training as men. Corporate learning focuses around outsourcing to business schools who will then try and create a tailor-made program for a set of managers. However, a lot of times these programs ignore individuals needs and instead focus on company priorities. A number of consultancies and business schools, especially the European ones, are waking up to this but unfortunately, there is a long way to go. If we hire and train individuals early (e.g. right out of university) then the pool of potential board members will be higher. Companies right now are faced with an ever smaller collection of managers. If we then place regulatory requirements on this already limited pool, shareholders will be the ultimate sufferers and companies will see their access to capital fall.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.