A study has found that companies with women on their boards are less profitable and have smaller market caps than those governed by solely alpha-males.
The study’s authors rushed to say that the findings didn’t actually PROVE that women wreck companies.
In fact, companies with women board members tend to be better at things like “executive supervision and monitoring.” And female board members actually show up for board meetings, which apparently shames their male counterparts into doing the same.
But let us say what the authors of the study wanted to say but couldn’t:
The results suggest that women like to keep companies neat and tidy and nice-smelling, but if you want to kick arse, hire men.
Is that about right?
So, for the sake of American competitiveness, should we boot women out of boardrooms and send them back to the kitchen? What do our female readers think of these findings?
Megan Murphy in the FT: The study, which was based on a survey of nearly 87,000 directorships at 2,000 US companies between 1996 and 2003, concluded that boards with more women were more effective at tasks such as executive supervision and monitoring…
Yet while those traits often helped badly governed companies, the Ferreira and Adams study suggests that increased monitoring can have a negative effect on well-governed businesses.
Female directors also had a better record of attending board meetings, which appeared to have a beneficial “knock-on effect” on their male counterparts.
“This is a complicated picture,” Mr Ferreira said. “Our research shows that women directors are doing their jobs very well. But a tough board, with more monitoring, may not always be a good thing.”
NOW WATCH: Money & Markets videos
Business Insider Emails & Alerts
Site highlights each day to your inbox.