As we learnt in class, based on the sample conducted in the US, the likelihood of a female CEO owner choosing the successor as a
woman is 31% and the likelihood of a male CEO owner choosing a successor as a woman is 7%.
I do not feel that it is due to gender discrimination
practices because the majority of the female CEO owners (69%) still choose men
as their successors.
My question is this, is it likely in a female owned firm
that there are more ways for women to demonstrate their abilities?
I feel that
this may be the case because the female CEO creates opportunities for future
women based on her first-hand experience of the lack of opportunities from
previous experience.
However, should a female CEO focus on attending to the
controversial nature of gender in that way rather than recruiting a successor
based on their qualifications alone?
I am really confused on this question and topic in general.
Ed suggested in class
that researchers should look at the experience of the performance in those
firms in order to draw some kind of relevant suggestion for this set of results.
As I also said in class, I believe that the reason why female CEO owners choose more female successors than male CEO owners do, is probably that female entrepreneurs have more trust in females than men do, and are less sceptical about females’ capabilities to be strong-willed and resistant enough to run a business, maybe even if the industry is male-dominated. This explanation is, for me, well comprehensible, as these female CEOs have already experienced and observed themselves as having those indispensable character traits and the ability to cope with that position: They themselves have been able to do this job successfully, so why should other females not be able to meet these requirements, too?
ReplyDeleteAs a consequence, this also applies to the whole hierarchical structure, thus, female managers also trust females to be good department leaders etc.- which, in a way, of course creates more ways for women to demonstrate their abilities.
However, the reason why the majority of successors chosen (both by male and female CEOs) is still male, might be that females are often more dependent on having good and positive and harmonious relationships with stakeholders (as for instance employees), than men – as one other sample in class (indirectly) demonstrated. This does not mean that every woman always tends to avoids conflicts instead of standing negative situations, but it is still a kind of a stereotype: women are more emotional and caring than men – which is not implicitly a good character trait for being the most powerful person in a successful business.
Another very likely reason is that women are still much more busy with child education and family organization than men, having the consequence that, first, men are more often given credit to be a possible CEO that is ‘continuously’ available for business purposes – and that, secondly, more men are willing to do this job than women.
Hi Sarah.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your arguments about why less women are chosen for the CEO position by the successors by males and females. It is a shame but your arguments are very
The trust element of your text strikes me as something that is common between female-female relationships as I feel that most women empathise with other women, more than men can.
Therefore, my question to you (and whoever else is reading this comment thread), what is more controversial and why: a woman hiring along her gender lines (in order to boost the female minority in the work place) or a man hiring along his gender lines?
If you are able to pick, my follow up question is, can there really be an unbiased answer to this question? Seeing as we are all standing on a subjective platform that projects our own genders, to a great extent.
Folks, these are interesting & potentially valuable speculations & ruminations, but to be valid arguments you will need to find some source of support for your personal opinions. Well done nonetheless. 5/10
ReplyDeleteHi Nkem,
ReplyDeletethank you for your post, but unfortunately I don't understand your questions. What should it be controversial? What do you mean, why should "hiring a man as a male CEO" be controversial? It's just a fact we were told in class. When a successor is needed, in most cases the most competent person is chosen - which is either a man or a woman.