Post: #1

As mentioned in another thread, after a woman was put in charge of the Secret Service, a deranged men literally walked in through the door.

Have their been other instances where an organization was obviously degraded after a woman was put into charge? I'm thinking of doing a post on this.

Post: #2

The CEO of H.P. Meg Whitman. She did a piss poor job with that company after taking it over and drastically screwed up H.P. market share in notebooks and quality dipped hard too.

The current federal reserve chair Janet Yellen. She seemed to coast in mostly as an overqualified academic. Her continuation of quantitative easing policies has set up a massive stock bubble and another potential financial disaster on the horizon.

Post: #3

Here's a list of female CEOs of Fortune 500 companies.

I suppose you could take your pick...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wom..._companies


According to Market Watch, Andrea Jung of Avon Products was one of the worst female CEOs:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/america...2011-10-27



Q

Post: #4

(09-30-2014 12:19 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  The CEO of H.P. Meg Whitman. She did a piss poor job with that company after taking it over and drastically screwed up H.P. market share in notebooks and quality dipped hard too.

I think you're thinking of Carly Fiorina. She was CEO of HP from 99-05, and really ran it into the ground with the Compaq merger as her biggest blunder. Whitman is by no means great, but the bar at HP was set low with Fiorina.

Whitman had her own blunders with eBay. I used to make some beer money off eBay 10 years ago. About that time, they changed their feedback policies and drastically skewed the power towards buyers an mega-sellers. If a buyer wasn't happy with your choice of postage stamp, you could get negative feedback with minimal recourse. A lot of small sellers ditched eBay at that time.

Post: #5

Carly Fiorina at Hewlett-Packard - forced to resign as CEO, and HP's stock lost half of its value throughout her tenure.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34086.html

The granddaughter of one of Hewlett-Packard’s founders had this to say about her:

Quote:“I know a little bit about Carly Fiorina, having watched her almost destroy the company my grandfather founded..."Most business commentators consider Fiorina's tenure at HP to be a disaster,” Packard continued. “The stock price dropped by 50% only to rally 10% on the announcement of her firing. She fired 28,000 people before she herself was fired...

I'd say that counts as "obviously degraded."

Post: #6

(09-30-2014 12:08 PM)Roosh Wrote:  As mentioned in another thread, after a woman was put in charge of the Secret Service, a deranged men literally walked in through the door.

Have their been other instances where an organization was obviously degraded after a woman was put into charge? I'm thinking of doing a post on this.

Does the USA qualify as an organization? I thought if you maybe could wait till 2016.

Post: #7

Carly Fiorina.

Post: #8

(09-30-2014 12:31 PM)Cheetah Wrote:  Does the USA qualify as an organization?

Or Presidential Campaigns

Post: #9

(09-30-2014 12:31 PM)Cheetah Wrote:  Does the USA qualify as an organization?

Beat me to it

Post: #10

Western Civilization.

Post: #11

While it was already in decline, Yahoo's demise has been picking up pace ever since Marissa Mayer came in. Ad revenue & general usage has been down, as well as its market share So what has been her answer? SHOPPING SPREE!!! When in trouble pack on the debt, standard female modus operandi

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/20...issa-mayer

Post: #12

Marisa Mayer - Yahoo
Nancy Brinkman - Susan G Komen - she created it but also killed it
Marilyn Hewson - Lockheed Martin - makers of the F-35 which pilots describe as the biggest shit pile of a fighter and has been delayed forever http://gerarddirect.com/2013/03/10/uss-f...peasement/ mind you their stock price has about tripled since 2005.

Post: #13

I've seen it firsthand where a woman was "parachuted" in to run a corporate department (as opposed to working upward through the ranks).
Inept management style led to massive brain drain.
In 6 months a handful of talent had quit.
I added up their combined experience -- at least 50-60 combined years of experience and knowledge… just walked out the fk'ing door.
(can't blame 'em for leaving though)
/shakes head

This particular corporate property never really recovered and she was gone after doing the damage.

Post: #14

Wow, just wow you misogynists.

Clearly it's just sexist stock short-sellers that are conspiring to make female CEOs look bad.

Post: #15

I mean, a bad female ceo isnt profd that women are bad ceos any more than a bad male ceo is. Do women ceos on average cause a largerd rop in stock price, profitability, etc? Anyone could cherry pick an example of one or two bad ceos to show that GROUP X sucks at it...

Post: #16

Before Marissa Mayer, there was Carol Bartz, who lasted about 2.5 years as CEO of Yahoo.

Also look up the bribery scandal of Darleen Druyun at Boeing.

It's not intellectually credible to parade a couple anecdotes of women failing as proof of female inferiority. Either the research should be comprehensive, and your results are not just the consequence of cherry picking data, or you can identify a special pattern of failure that is the province of women.

Someone on the forum did a fairly detailed statistical analysis of the performance of female run companies. It was pretty negative.

Post: #17

Damnit, I was going to say Yahoo. Dr. Howard beat me to it.

Still though, it's a shame to see how downhill Yahoo has gone with the killing of their products and their lack of popularity.

Post: #18

(09-30-2014 01:39 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  I mean, a bad female ceo isnt profd that women are bad ceos any more than a bad male ceo is. Do women ceos on average cause a largerd rop in stock price, profitability, etc? Anyone could cherry pick an example of one or two bad ceos to show that GROUP X sucks at it...

Yeah, but bad male CEOs are immediately disposed after damaging the company or a 'PR disaster'. The fact that there is a bad female CEO who is still a CEO is already a proof that women suck at it, since they can't find any better women to replace those CEOs.

Post: #19

Just came across an article about the performance of companies led by women. Sounds almost exactly in line with the market: "11 of those 24 [female CEOs at publicly traded companies] are at companies where the stock is beating the market this year." However, it's drawn from a list extolling powerful women, so they may have left out the more embarassing female CEOs, I'm not sure.


http://americasmarkets.usatoday.com/2014...ng-market/

Post: #20

(09-30-2014 02:20 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  Just came across an article about the performance of companies led by women. Sounds almost exactly in line with the market: "11 of those 24 [female CEOs at publicly traded companies] are at companies where the stock is beating the market this year." However, it's drawn from a list extolling powerful women, so they may have left out the more embarassing female CEOs, I'm not sure.


http://americasmarkets.usatoday.com/2014...ng-market/

Right, so 13 are running companies that barely have their heads above water?

13/24, they call that a majority.

Post: #21

Quote:Someone on the forum did a fairly detailed statistical analysis of the performance of female run companies

Do you have the link to that?

Post: #22

Quote:Someone on the forum did a fairly detailed statistical analysis of the performance of female run companies. It was pretty negative.

I think that was the regression analysis i did on the effect of the % of women on revenue per a person. Let me go dig it out.

Edit:Found it

   


Source: http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/for...012/women/

These are the best 100 companies to work for and have a range of women from 95% to 10%. We can assume that this is as good as it gets for revenue per an employee and should probably dip after this list. A few companies didn't have any info for revenue and/or % of women so i removed them. I would have preferred profitability per an employee since it would give an idea of costs; but you work with what you got and I don't want to go through nearly a 100 financial reports. So the measure i used was revenue per an employee. Revenue per an employee was used since if there are staff that aren't doing anything, it should reduce as you have more non-revenue generating employees.

I would say industry does explain a lot of the revenue per an employee. I do recognize that different industries have different cost structures hence why i wanted profit and because women flock to certain industries. Health was a big one in the sample. If I had more time, I would do an industry by industry comparison but the numbers are good enough to get the idea there is a trend going on even after removing industry from the model. An R^2 of 20% which is about what your SAT is at for assessing your intelligence. It's not a perfect correlation but it's good enough given the data. Also due note, the clearest relationship for drop in revenue is at the highest percentages which might mean there is a sort of "cattiness" threshold.

Anyway the main takeaway is for every absolute percentage point increase of women in the workforce, the revenue per an employee drops by 2.45% which means if you have a 100% female workforce you could be potentially making 92% less revenue per an employee than a full male workforce.


General Regression Analysis: log10_rev versus % women

Regression Equation

log10_rev = 6.16215 - 1.09753 % women


96 cases used


Coefficients

Term Coef SE Coef T P
Constant 6.16215 0.110912 55.5589 0.000002
% women -1.09753 0.217357 -5.0495 0.000002


Summary of Model

S = 0.398729 R-Sq = 21.34% R-Sq(adj) = 20.50%
PRESS = 15.5224 R-Sq(pred) = 18.30%

Post: #23

I believe the R^2 for IQ and SATs is about 0.8, not 0.2.

"Right, so 13 are running companies that barely have their heads above water?

13/24, they call that a majority."

That's like saying if you roll a die six times and got any number twice the die is loaded. Randomness means close calls are not proof of anything - assuming equality, or that sex is irrelevant, is the most plausible conclusion for that sample's result.

Post: #24

(09-30-2014 03:57 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  I believe the R^2 for IQ and SATs is about 0.8, not 0.2.

SAT is used for prediction on first year college grades. For first year grades, it has a 40%-50% correlation based on different reports, this makes the R^2 16% to 25%. Most admissions models add GPA and other factors into the model to boost the predictiveness.

But you are correct on the 80% for the IQ.

Either way, I'm saying there's a moderate correlation with semi-good data. I would expect that correlation to go up with better data. Even then, I think the high girl % firms have a pretty high correlation with revenue per employee decline.

Post: #25