Fortune: Women-led companies perform three times better than S&P 500

“There’s a lot of the theorizing around why the results are dramatically higher for the women, but most think it has to do with how hard women have to work to become CEO at such big companies in the first place,” Rubin says. The ones who do “really represent the cream of the crop,” she adds.

Gonna need to see the actual sample to judge here. Was the fund evenly distributed? Were all industries adequately represented?

For me, it logically follows that companies willing to hire women as CEOs probably have fairer and more open cultures conducive to better productivity/results.

By HasphatsAnts“There’s a lot of the theorizing around why the results are dramatically higher for the women, but most think it has to do with how hard women have to work to become CEO at such big companies in the first place,” Rubin says. The ones who do “really represent the cream of the crop,” she adds.

Gonna need to see the actual sample to judge here. Was the fund evenly distributed? Were all industries adequately represented?

For me, it logically follows that companies willing to hire women as CEOs probably have fairer and more open cultures conducive to better productivity/results.

I think that's a big point that can be gathered from it all too.

By DY_nasty

By HasphatsAnts“There’s a lot of the theorizing around why the results are dramatically higher for the women, but most think it has to do with how hard women have to work to become CEO at such big companies in the first place,” Rubin says. The ones who do “really represent the cream of the crop,” she adds.

Gonna need to see the actual sample to judge here. Was the fund evenly distributed? Were all industries adequately represented?

For me, it logically follows that companies willing to hire women as CEOs probably have fairer and more open cultures conducive to better productivity/results.

I think that's a big point that can be gathered from it all too.

Feel free to believe that if you want. Businesses don't see people, they see dollar signs. Whoever produces results gets to the top. If they happen to be female, well, that's good PR too, but not a priority.

By Zero Tolerance

By DY_nasty

By HasphatsAnts“There’s a lot of the theorizing around why the results are dramatically higher for the women, but most think it has to do with how hard women have to work to become CEO at such big companies in the first place,” Rubin says. The ones who do “really represent the cream of the crop,” she adds.

Gonna need to see the actual sample to judge here. Was the fund evenly distributed? Were all industries adequately represented?

For me, it logically follows that companies willing to hire women as CEOs probably have fairer and more open cultures conducive to better productivity/results.

I think that's a big point that can be gathered from it all too.

Feel free to believe that if you want. Businesses don't see people, they see dollar signs. Whoever produces results gets to the top. If they happen to be female, well, that's good PR too, but not a priority.

I mean, that's nice to believe and all but that isn't how things work. Biases exist.

By Zero Tolerance

By DY_nasty

By HasphatsAnts“There’s a lot of the theorizing around why the results are dramatically higher for the women, but most think it has to do with how hard women have to work to become CEO at such big companies in the first place,” Rubin says. The ones who do “really represent the cream of the crop,” she adds.

Gonna need to see the actual sample to judge here. Was the fund evenly distributed? Were all industries adequately represented?

For me, it logically follows that companies willing to hire women as CEOs probably have fairer and more open cultures conducive to better productivity/results.

I think that's a big point that can be gathered from it all too.

Feel free to believe that if you want. Businesses don't see people, they see dollar signs. Whoever produces results gets to the top. If they happen to be female, well, that's good PR too, but not a priority.

You're thinking about it backwards. His point was a proper business sees everyone as a potential productive resource. Some companies simply cast women aside because of various kinds of sexism including the assumption they will be less valuable to the company while pregnant or as a mom.

By db

By Zero Tolerance

By DY_nasty

By HasphatsAnts“There’s a lot of the theorizing around why the results are dramatically higher for the women, but most think it has to do with how hard women have to work to become CEO at such big companies in the first place,” Rubin says. The ones who do “really represent the cream of the crop,” she adds.

Gonna need to see the actual sample to judge here. Was the fund evenly distributed? Were all industries adequately represented?

For me, it logically follows that companies willing to hire women as CEOs probably have fairer and more open cultures conducive to better productivity/results.

I think that's a big point that can be gathered from it all too.

Feel free to believe that if you want. Businesses don't see people, they see dollar signs. Whoever produces results gets to the top. If they happen to be female, well, that's good PR too, but not a priority.

You're thinking about it backwards. His point was a proper business sees everyone as a potential productive resource. Some companies simply cast women aside because of various kinds of sexism including the assumption they will be less valuable to the company while pregnant or as a mom.

How am I thinking about it backwards? I reject the idea that a business with female CEOs "probably" are more inclusive. The idea of what is "proper" in business is an ethical minefield. The only purpose of "business" is to profit. Whatever maximizes profit is "considered good for business" and is pursued. Wal-Mart and Amazon are great examples of crap employee infrastructure but crazy profits.

We're speaking casually, but I'm saying that I seriously doubt that the women who are CEO's are successful because those businesses were empathetic concerning their struggles as women coming up in a patriarchal leadership structure, but rather, they "made it" because they put their male competition to shame. I cannot imagine a scenario where a business would take a woman as CEO if she made the company say, $500k less in profit than the male equivalent, just because she's female and that's good PR. Naw, if she's in leadership, it's because she is moping the floor with a bunch of dudes who are probably there because of their (white, male) privilege, or even those who are actually trying.

By Zero Tolerance

By db

By Zero Tolerance

By DY_nasty

By HasphatsAnts“There’s a lot of the theorizing around why the results are dramatically higher for the women, but most think it has to do with how hard women have to work to become CEO at such big companies in the first place,” Rubin says. The ones who do “really represent the cream of the crop,” she adds.

Gonna need to see the actual sample to judge here. Was the fund evenly distributed? Were all industries adequately represented?

For me, it logically follows that companies willing to hire women as CEOs probably have fairer and more open cultures conducive to better productivity/results.

I think that's a big point that can be gathered from it all too.

Feel free to believe that if you want. Businesses don't see people, they see dollar signs. Whoever produces results gets to the top. If they happen to be female, well, that's good PR too, but not a priority.

You're thinking about it backwards. His point was a proper business sees everyone as a potential productive resource. Some companies simply cast women aside because of various kinds of sexism including the assumption they will be less valuable to the company while pregnant or as a mom.

How am I thinking about it backwards? I reject the idea that a business with female CEOs "probably" are more inclusive. The idea of what is "proper" in business is an ethical minefield. The only purpose of "business" is to profit. Whatever maximizes profit is "considered good for business" and is pursued. Wal-Mart and Amazon are great examples of crap employee infrastructure but crazy profits.

We're speaking casually, but I'm saying that I seriously doubt that the women who are CEO's are successful because those businesses were empathetic concerning their struggles as women coming up in a patriarchal leadership structure, but rather, they "made it" because they put their male competition to shame. I cannot imagine a scenario where a business would take a woman as CEO if she made the company say, $500k less in profit than the male equivalent, just because she's female and that's good PR. Naw, if she's in leadership, it's because she is moping the floor with a bunch of dudes who are probably there because of their (white, male) privilege, or even those who are actually trying.

Uh the point is that the companies are about maximizing profit and efficiency so they wont look over the best candidate, male or female. The companies with those women at the top are fairing better because they chose the best candidate rather than nepotism or old fashioned sexism. I don't see where you're getting confused here. That's the point they were making.

By db

By Zero Tolerance

By db

By Zero Tolerance

By DY_nasty

By HasphatsAnts“There’s a lot of the theorizing around why the results are dramatically higher for the women, but most think it has to do with how hard women have to work to become CEO at such big companies in the first place,” Rubin says. The ones who do “really represent the cream of the crop,” she adds.

Gonna need to see the actual sample to judge here. Was the fund evenly distributed? Were all industries adequately represented?

For me, it logically follows that companies willing to hire women as CEOs probably have fairer and more open cultures conducive to better productivity/results.

I think that's a big point that can be gathered from it all too.

Feel free to believe that if you want. Businesses don't see people, they see dollar signs. Whoever produces results gets to the top. If they happen to be female, well, that's good PR too, but not a priority.

You're thinking about it backwards. His point was a proper business sees everyone as a potential productive resource. Some companies simply cast women aside because of various kinds of sexism including the assumption they will be less valuable to the company while pregnant or as a mom.

How am I thinking about it backwards? I reject the idea that a business with female CEOs "probably" are more inclusive. The idea of what is "proper" in business is an ethical minefield. The only purpose of "business" is to profit. Whatever maximizes profit is "considered good for business" and is pursued. Wal-Mart and Amazon are great examples of crap employee infrastructure but crazy profits.

We're speaking casually, but I'm saying that I seriously doubt that the women who are CEO's are successful because those businesses were empathetic concerning their struggles as women coming up in a patriarchal leadership structure, but rather, they "made it" because they put their male competition to shame. I cannot imagine a scenario where a business would take a woman as CEO if she made the company say, $500k less in profit than the male equivalent, just because she's female and that's good PR. Naw, if she's in leadership, it's because she is moping the floor with a bunch of dudes who are probably there because of their (white, male) privilege, or even those who are actually trying.

Uh the point is that the companies are about maximizing profit and efficiency so they wont look over the best candidate, male or female. The companies with those women at the top are fairing better because they chose the best candidate rather than nepotism or old fashioned sexism. I don't see where you're getting confused here. That's the point they were making.

I'm not getting confused here. I'm saying that these companies can still be sexist even with a female CEO, and even that CEO isn't necessarily free of internalized sexist practices. SCOTUS didn't become more empathetic to civil rights when Clarence Thomas was sworn in.

My outlook is just more cynical than theirs.