Why Investors React Negatively to Companies That Put Women on Their Boards
hbr.org
hbr.org
It's because companies that appoint Women to their boards make a fuss about how they are now "diverse".
Investors take that as a signal the company cares more about diversity then about actually making money. (i.e. that they care more about having a woman on the board then about finding the best board member.)
It's an interesting perverse consequence of "social justice culture". Consider the reversal: in a world that was irrationally discriminatory against women, that did not have a "social justice" culture, hiring women would be a signal (to unbiased, pragmatic people) that you cared more about getting things done than about what society thinks. The million-dollar question is - in a world with neither "social justice" nor irrational sexism, what is the expected sex ratio of a board of directors?
I've seen many for the sake of diversity to promote an administrative assistant to board member and be a puppet of the CEO.
If they wanted fair comparison they’d choose both name equally strong and with the same surname, eg Jane Smith for woman or Oliver Clark for man. Or better choose many different names to make sure name itself is not a factor. Especially if one of the name looks like not a real name but as a placeholder.
This and couple other signs show this is not a proper study and should be ignored.
So it doesn't really seem to be about the name.
> There was, however, a difference in the perceived goals of the company.