11–20 of 108 posts
EDIT: simonsarris beat me by 3 minutes wit better data, so I'll throw in another data point. In the past 25 presidential elections the taller or tying candidate won 19 times. Before that it is more even, perhaps because it was harder to see the differences.
"glut" means the opposite of what you think it means.
I'm slightly apprehensive (terrified) about commenting on this topic or any relating to gender/race because it seems like the bar for public crucifixion is somewhat low, even to those who just want to add data or other side-points to a discussion. Anyway, and I apologize in advance if I derail the topic, but I think there's a semi important distinction to qualify this discussion, because I do think the discussion app…
> What does this have to do with the glut of female leaders?
"Glut" is the wrong word; it means too many. You might replace it with "lack", "dearth", or "paucity".
The single thing I've seen over and over:
The only way ignorance is destroyed is when we take a minute to turn a stranger into a person by first acknowledging their existence as a member of our human family, and if possible learning a little about them and realizing, they're not that different than us.
Some truths I've yet to disprove about Glass Ceilings:
You can generally only bet on people to pay attention to glass ceilings that also affect them. Too many people don't understand, nor can they empathize very well with those who do.
I've learned to generally ignore every word anyone ever says about diversity of any kind in an organization and only pay attention to the actions.
If their diversity isn't already reflected in management, there's little chance they'll get there.
Discovering Glass Ceilings:
It doesn't seem misleading to feel those who are equally capable but an identifiable minority have to be twice as good in as twice as many ways as others to get half the respect. You get the idea.
I've spoken as an expert for a particular enterprise and government grade tool across North America. Imagine the biggest corporations and government departments in one room. Get some nice exposure, recognition, people even keep in touch..
Still, my oldest clients are the best, teach me so much about life and living, and I couldn't ask for anything more as I move forward.
Glass ceilings as fuel:
I figure getting where you want to go with hardwork is fine. It only helps build my entrepreneurial hustle.
Sometimes there's a few more bridges for me to build if someone hasn't dealt with someone who is "like them".
On the whole, I find this helps me build my ability to connect to people's needs that much better
To those who find glass ceilings:
Decide if you want to break through it. You can. (Often if you're not the first, you will be the last to try).
On the other hand, if you're that high caliber, you can probably start your own organization (and probably should). It's not to say going on your own is any easier -- you just have more ability to find the people who see life and the world like you do. Life is crazy anyways, having better people around makes the extremely tough balance out with the extremely good.
I understand this may be heavy maybe for some, but life with depth is where meaning and fulfillment is.
If anyone wants to chat about this and is afraid of being painted as a *-ist, feel free to contact me offline or reply here. If it makes you feel more comfortable, I can offer immunity/protection for what may seem like poorly worded questions (but are often well intended).
So the theory presented here is: = Attractive women are disproportionately hired and promoted. Many of these attractive women are not intelligent enough for upper management therefore there is a limit to how high these women reach in an organization. At the same time, less attractive women languish in the lower rungs, far below their intellectual potential. Furthermore, this phenomena does not affect men because they…
That's not the argument being made. The author is only claiming that hiring by a metric other than competence will lead to worse hires than hiring by competence alone.
It would be like if you hired the people with the shortest first names. Unless short names happened to be correlated with job performance, you're essentially picking names out of a hat. Pointing this out doesn't mean you think people with short names are less intelligent.
So the theory presented here is: = Attractive women are disproportionately hired and promoted. Many of these attractive women are not intelligent enough for upper management therefore there is a limit to how high these women reach in an organization. At the same time, less attractive women languish in the lower rungs, far below their intellectual potential. Furthermore, this phenomena does not affect men because they…
No, that's not what's being postulated.
Let's stipulate for a moment that attractiveness and intelligence are completely independent. Imagine you have a pool of 1000 men and 1000 women with a standard distribution of looks and ability. Let's say you hire the top 10% of the men in terms of ability, and you also hire the top 10% of women in terms of attractiveness. When it comes time to promote your executives based on ability, you will have 10 men in the top one percent of ability to choose from, as opposed to 1 woman with the same qualifications.
So the theory presented here is: = Attractive women are disproportionately hired and promoted. Many of these attractive women are not intelligent enough for upper management therefore there is a limit to how high these women reach in an organization. At the same time, less attractive women languish in the lower rungs, far below their intellectual potential. Furthermore, this phenomena does not affect men because they…
The assumption is that women selected for attractiveness are, on average, less intelligent than women selected for intelligence. That doesn't mean attractive women are less intelligent than unattractive women.
I'm slightly apprehensive (terrified) about commenting on this topic or any relating to gender/race because it seems like the bar for public crucifixion is somewhat low, even to those who just want to add data or other side-points to a discussion. Anyway, and I apologize in advance if I derail the topic, but I think there's a semi important distinction to qualify this discussion, because I do think the discussion app…
So the theory presented here is: = Attractive women are disproportionately hired and promoted. Many of these attractive women are not intelligent enough for upper management therefore there is a limit to how high these women reach in an organization. At the same time, less attractive women languish in the lower rungs, far below their intellectual potential. Furthermore, this phenomena does not affect men because they…
However, due to attractiveness having a heavier weight than ability in the hiring decision, you hire disproportionately from the full distribution of attractive female candidates, rather than just the "above-average" sides of both distributions. This leaves an artificially scarce supply of female employees competent enough for upper-management level.
In contrast, if men are hired more on competency and less on looks, then you're not arbitrarily splitting your candidate pool into two distributions - one of which (the unattractive) you are very unlikely to hire from - and you're likely to hire all competent males vs. some competent and a few that really shouldn't have been hired but looked good.