
Male and female bosses share the same “classically masculine” personality traits - dgudkov
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/03/02/male-and-female-bosses-share-the-same-classically-masculine-personality-traits/
======
dkoubsky
Jordan Peterson talked about this in his infamous Cathy Newman interview. I
think it's worth a watch:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54)

~~~
totalZero
I can't bear to watch this...she's horrible at her job.

------
GreaterFool
If there truly are no differences between men and women and these traits get
one to the top of the food chain, why are feminists demanding that workplace
becomes more feminine (women friendly) so women can make it to the top without
exhibiting said traits?

~~~
RobLach
I believe the argument is that these traits aren’t exactly indications of
effective leadership but are being selected for because they are indications
of masculinity and work with an inherent bias that men are good leaders, which
in turn reinforces the selection because the leaders you observe tend to be
men and have these traits.

~~~
belorn
The researchers and article both write that one can not draw any conclusion if
those traits are being selected by others or is self selected. It could be
bias, or it could be traits that correlate to higher leadership ambitions. The
research data do not provide any insight to that question.

Instead of speculating which one of those is the correct answer, maybe we
should ask what kind of research data would conclusively prove or disprove
either theory. Just like this study attempted to establish some data on the
theory that senior management tend to share common traits regardless of
gender, what kind of study would help to establish date on the theory behind
why those traits are common among senior management?

~~~
GreaterFool
Jordan Peterson talks about this a lot; that these traits are the best
predictors of success in the workplace. He also states that he doesn't know
whether "feminine" traits would work as well. Not enough data.

So how do you test it? You could re-organize a company around "feminine"
traits but the only data we have right now would indicate that you'd lose out
to competition. So unless a billionaire with deep pockets would like to run a
social experiment it is not going to happen.

Governmental fiat? That's partially what is happening in some places. I mean
specifically more women in the boardroom (e.g. EU rules mandating at least 30%
women). But then those women that made it turned out to make same decisions as
men (no, your female boss is not less likely to fire you).

What about survival of the fittest? If "feminine" traits are of any advantage
then some company would successfully evolve to benefit from it. That didn't
happen.

I think the problem lies in what success means. Public companies are forced to
return value to shareholders. I remember reading an article about Etsy. They
seem to have had "feminine" traits at the core of the company culture and
later on the culture was changed top-down in the name of chasing corporate
profits.

But as a listed company what choice do they have? If they don't chase profits
they'd get sued by shareholders or some activist investor will mount an
attack. You can't leave money on the table, whether you're a man or a woman.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
> If they don't chase profits they'd get sued by shareholders or some activist
> investor will mount an attack. You can't leave money on the table, whether
> you're a man or a woman.

There is no objectively best profit maximizing strategy for a company to
pursue. Courts give management wide latitude to exercise their own judgement
about how to run a company. The only way that they will intervene on behalf of
shareholders is when management can be proven to have acted in bad faith.

CEOs are chosen not because they are objectively the best at maximizing
profits but because they have traits that investors believe make for a good
CEO. If investors are choosing masculine CEOs it's not necessarily because
masculine CEOs are better at producing profits, it's because investors
perceive them as being better at producing profits.

Survival of the fittest doesn't mean that the optimal strategy always wins
out. If you believe that then you would have to believe that every species of
life is perfect.

~~~
GreaterFool
Please read the story of Etsy:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/business/etsy-josh-
silver...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/business/etsy-josh-
silverman.html)

> There is no objectively best profit maximizing strategy for a company to
> pursue. There's always pressure to cut costs and cutting costs is always
> rough. CEO compensation is usually tied to share price. So they work to
> maximize the share price. I wish there were more companies with a "mission"
> beyond $$$ but it is hard to do. You have to stay private, I suppose.

Do you have any data at all to back your claims about how CEOs are chosen?

------
ender89
In other words, all bosses are assholes and statistically speaking most
assholes are men.

~~~
apk-d
And this is the top comment? How disappointing.

