Women in top positions makes businesses more profitable

>Gender diversity is correlated with both profitability and value creation. In our 2017 data set, we found a positive correlation between gender diversity on executive teams and both our measures of financial performance: top-quartile companies on executive-level gender diversity worldwide had a 21 percent likelihood of outperforming their fourth-quartile industry peers on EBIT margin, and they also had a 27 percent likelihood of outperforming fourth-quartile peers on longer-term value creation, as measured using an economic-profit (EP) margin

mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/delivering-through-diversity

Sup Forums on literal suicide watch.

Like equifax

Like Yahoo

Nice cherrypicking, faggots. I can name a bunch of male-dominated businesses that went under. Actually, since most companies are male-dominated, any list of bankrupt corporations would suffice to BTFO you.

>trusting any statistic without having the raw data set
seems like someone didnt listen in math

>not considering that profitable businesses leads to greater visibility and that the leftist public wanting "diversity" will lead to businesses hiring women in droves.

This thread is shitty bait, sage and report

How many of those companies got to the top by being led by women vs. installed women leadership AFTER they became profitable and could afford "diversity"?

The only good woman CEO I can think of in recent years is Lisa Su.
That's about it I guess.

Women are put in high positions of companies that are doing well and want to look good,the moment things go bad they are removed.

>competent women who deserves the top position is actually pretty good at it
breaking news, competent means competent, if a monkey could do better he would be more competent at it

the fem speech of diversity is dumb tho, as always

tell that to yahoo shareholders after meyer got her cunt involved

>Sup Forums on literal suicide watch
Marissa Meyer killed Yahoo, so I gave you an example of women running multi-billion $$$ companies into the complete ground.

Now whose company is still functional after decades? Oh right, Bill Gates, MS, male.

spoiler: white

it's actually the opposite, women are put in high positions when all the men are bailing, femishits have complained about it forever, which is why i doubt the study

>businesses with money to waste on "equality" are better off then businesses that dont.

do you even know how to into stats101?

...

Nobody noted that correlation != causation yet?

More successful businesses can afford to higher more women in top positions

Reverse asinine claim taken from the same correlation.

signed: someone who thinks that diversity at the same level of qualification is beneficial

People can make statistics say anything. Take you're nothing burger and go home Dianne

The solution was so simple all along... We must get a woman to run ms

and we can list countless male-dominated companies that are thriving and have created the very fabric of civilization of which we come from.

Name a single female dominated company (that also started out as a female dominated company) that has had as much of an impact on the world as say... i don't know, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Pfizer, Ford, Johnson & Johnson, GE, etc etc

I wont hold my breath though.

>another woman-worshipping cuck thread
Get fucked faggots.
Sage.

>Pajeet in charge of Microsoft
>Pajeet in charge of Google
>both are skyrocketing in $$$ growth
Sup Forums on double literal suicide watch

>correlated
>correlation
correlation != causation

I do, that's precisely why I care more about a peer-reviewed large-sampled study than I care about a couple of cherrypicked anecdotal cases.

Chocolate Chip cookies

So having women is 79% likely to cause under performance?

>cherrypicking
This study

Just say young companies had better performance and more women as executives.

What does this "prove"?

Correlation doesn't imply causation. It could very well be that companies that are already successful want to score PR points by appointing more women. And those that aren't as successful don't think it's worth hiring women just for the sake of PR, when they have way bigger issues to confront than mah diversity hiring. They can't afford this culture of identity politics when they're barely on a floating line.

A better study would have shown that those companies became more successful after hiring more women in management positions.

Showing a correlation post-factum doesn't prove much.

>getting this triggered by a thread transparently meant to bait Sup Forumstards like yourself
you're only encouraging the OP to post these more often.