What’s the difference between men and women? It’s this question that underpins Harriet Harman’s claim that a mixed-gender team makes “better decisions”. After all, if the only difference between the genders is that women have funny plumbing, it’s not obvious why a political leader’s gender should matter.
However, although a lot of the evidence (pdf) is ambiguous, economic researchers have discovered some gender differences in decision-making, for example:
1. Groups in which women are the majority are more likely to be generous (pdf) to outsiders. However, all-women groups are less generous than majority-women groups.
2. Women are less good at negotiating than men, especially in situations where benchmarks are opaque - such as in businesses with unclear salary structures.
3. Women perform worse under pressure than men. For example, women tennis players are more likely than men to make unforced errors at crucial stages of a match.
4. Men are more over-confident than women. For example, men trade shares more often than women, but earn lower returns.
5. Women are more risk averse than men - perhaps because of socialization rather than innate differences - though not more averse to ambiguity.
Do these differences justify Harman’s claim? In themselves, not at all. These differences are true only of average tendencies. There are loads of women who are less risk-averse than men, for example. Charlotte is entirely right to say that it is silly collectivism to pretend otherwise.
Indeed, it could be that selection effects in politics are powerful than gender differences. For example, if political careers only appeal to people who are over-confident, the tendency for women to be less over-confident than men will be irrelevant in deciding who should be Labour leader, as women who aren’t over-confident won’t have entered politics in the first place.
There is, though, another way in which women leaders might improve decision making, even if they are identical to men in their cognitive skills or lack thereof. The very fact that women are different might help to reduce groupthink - the tendency for groups of decision-makers to become overly homogenous and so over-confident and insufficiently self-critical. Evidence for this lies in the fact that, sometimes (pdf), women board members can improve company performance.
What’s not so clear, though, is whether this effect is the result of their femininity or just their difference. If it’s the latter then there might be no more case for having a woman leader than having a black or gay one, as these too might reduce groupthink.
However, although a lot of the evidence (pdf) is ambiguous, economic researchers have discovered some gender differences in decision-making, for example:
1. Groups in which women are the majority are more likely to be generous (pdf) to outsiders. However, all-women groups are less generous than majority-women groups.
2. Women are less good at negotiating than men, especially in situations where benchmarks are opaque - such as in businesses with unclear salary structures.
3. Women perform worse under pressure than men. For example, women tennis players are more likely than men to make unforced errors at crucial stages of a match.
4. Men are more over-confident than women. For example, men trade shares more often than women, but earn lower returns.
5. Women are more risk averse than men - perhaps because of socialization rather than innate differences - though not more averse to ambiguity.
Do these differences justify Harman’s claim? In themselves, not at all. These differences are true only of average tendencies. There are loads of women who are less risk-averse than men, for example. Charlotte is entirely right to say that it is silly collectivism to pretend otherwise.
Indeed, it could be that selection effects in politics are powerful than gender differences. For example, if political careers only appeal to people who are over-confident, the tendency for women to be less over-confident than men will be irrelevant in deciding who should be Labour leader, as women who aren’t over-confident won’t have entered politics in the first place.
There is, though, another way in which women leaders might improve decision making, even if they are identical to men in their cognitive skills or lack thereof. The very fact that women are different might help to reduce groupthink - the tendency for groups of decision-makers to become overly homogenous and so over-confident and insufficiently self-critical. Evidence for this lies in the fact that, sometimes (pdf), women board members can improve company performance.
What’s not so clear, though, is whether this effect is the result of their femininity or just their difference. If it’s the latter then there might be no more case for having a woman leader than having a black or gay one, as these too might reduce groupthink.
Harperson is responsible for equality. She basically said Women are better than Men. (Yes she did, she would never say the same thing she did but reverse the sexes, furthermore if an employer did say the opposite of what she said then they would potentially be charged under anti discrimination law. Therefore she herself is guilty of anti-man descrimination and should resign or be fired immediately.
Of course Brown has as many Balls as Harman so that's not likely.
Posted by: zorro | August 03, 2009 at 03:44 PM
It’s this question that underpins Harriet Harman’s claim that a mixed-gender team makes “better decisions”.
And that's why she's hellbent on replacing men with women in all key roles.
Posted by: jameshigham | August 03, 2009 at 04:22 PM
What's it all got to do with Scarlett? I can't quit looking at her.
Posted by: John | August 04, 2009 at 04:21 AM
@John - the story's about women. She's a woman. That's reason enough, I reckon.
Posted by: chris | August 04, 2009 at 09:16 AM
Fair's fiar though - I admire Chris for slipping that photo in [relevant, of course]. :)
Posted by: jameshigham | August 04, 2009 at 09:18 AM
I don't really think that it makes much difference if there are women in a decision making body or not. It is right that this is the case.
Does it improve their decisions? No I think that they stay the same. The problem is that in top-down, hierarchical organisations, the top body have lots of good ideas, but no knowledge. Therefore all of their decisions will be plausible ideas that will inevitably go wrong because they are removed from the work.
It is a bit of a cul-de-sac to be honest
Posted by: howardclark@btinternet.com | August 04, 2009 at 11:34 AM
The most amusing finding I've seen is the response to that claim that if we had more women in banks then we'd have less risk taking.
The response being that mixed gender environments encourage risk taking in both men and women: single sex environments (either, all male, all female) reduce it.
Posted by: Tim Worstall | August 04, 2009 at 01:30 PM
single sex environments (either, all male, all female) reduce [risk taking]
This will come as news to the Taliban.
Posted by: Hmmmm | August 04, 2009 at 02:28 PM
Are we to assume that Scarlett's risk taking is better than eg Brad Pitt's? Personally, I could look at her Atlantic Shelf all day long...
Posted by: kinglear | August 04, 2009 at 03:39 PM
Mmmm....
— I'm sorry, were you saying something?
Posted by: NomadUK | August 05, 2009 at 11:20 AM
I will say agree that mixed-gender teams make better decisions, but I do feel that men and women are equal. If it's all male, their egos tend to get in the way, and if it's all women their hormones get in the way. With mixed-gender they will, hopefully, even things out. Brains have nothing to do with being male and female, though. Either you have them or you don't.
Posted by: Leah | August 06, 2009 at 07:52 PM
And a lot of it reflects a switch from bank deposits to securities; foreigners “other investments” in the UK, http://www.watchgy.com/ mostly bank deposits, fell by £143.2bn in Q1. And of course there’s no guarantee such buying will continue.
http://www.watchgy.com/tag-heuer-c-24.html
http://www.watchgy.com/rolex-submariner-c-8.html
Posted by: rolex | December 27, 2009 at 04:20 PM
Thank you Thank you!! Those are so cute and look a lot easier to make then the fabric ones I have made in the past. Can't wait to try it out!!!
Posted by: cialis online | April 26, 2010 at 08:11 PM