That was the question on BBC's World Service this morning.
Specifically: do women on company boards add value to the company? In economically measurable ways, that is.
The woman being interviewed, whose name I didn't catch, talked about research that she and a colleague had done into the boards of hundreds of public companies. Their conclusion? That women on company boards did not necessarily add measurable economic value to the company. If the company was in need of tough love then women added value because they tended to be tougher on issues than men (that, I kind of knew, but interesting to have some data put to it). If, on the other hand, the company was already being driven tough then women did not add value. (I suspect this is a glimpse of the obvious, but it's not me making the point).
She thought it best to argue for diversity on boards in the basis of morality and fairness, rather than in the basis of economic value-add.
Next came another woman, again whose name I didn't catch, who said that there was "no doubt" that women added value to a company board.
Now, we had just heard — with data and charts and circles and arrows — that this was not the case. That there is "some doubt". That "it depends". Typical BBC, the presenter did not push back.
This second woman said that she was on a company board herself and felt she had added value partly because she was a woman, as women have different perspectives.
I reckon that's true — that is, that women add economic value to a company, even if "it depends" to some extent. Women do add different perspectives and that's a strength and value in itself.
But here's the thing: in other contexts if you make the same point — namely that women are different from men and have different perspectives — you're liable to find yourself in hot water. Because women are the same as men, don't you know. They are not different from men.
Ask James Damore, author of the famous "Google memo", how he got on suggesting — with data and charts and circles and arrows — that women are somewhat different from men, maybe have somewhat different preferences and somewhat different aspirations in life. How did Damore get on? Answer: he was sacked from Google and roundly condemned by his boss his colleagues and by SJWs of every sex (and none).
What I'd like to see here is some consistency.
For me, the consistency would be something like this: women and men are different physically and mentally, but with huge overlaps in the bell curve.
That used to be a platitude. But if you're still in employment and especially in academia, you better watch out saying that. Could be a tenure buster.
I can say it 'cause I'm retired. Hah!
