Testosterone and the Crash

Yes, there should be more women in boardrooms and in executive positions on Wall Street, but don't expect them to be any less ambitious or free from error. Remember, among others, Carly Fiorina and the the former head of mattel (whose name escapes me).

It is not improbable that much of the risk-taking on Wall Street was done by the male-centric emphasis on quants and the belief that computer models could capture all.

What we need more analysis of is the extent to which women-centric spending patterns created the debt from which America is now reeling. Look around and you see the excesses of female spending patterns -- too many malls, McMansions, hospitality establishments, and remodeled kitchens.

We used to read all the time about how women made 80% of buying decisions, that they're the target of most advertising, and are the primary movers of the real estate market, whether single or married. Now that we know America was over-spending, the fact that it was women who were doing it has disappeared from the coverage.

The women who have risen to the top of the corporate ladder have had to mimic the behavior of their male counterparts in order to be taken seriously. Sadly, the model of "leadership" in corporate America is still based on male behavior. Until people start to recognize and appreciate the differing leadership styles that women can bring to the table, we will continue to have women who are largely male clones in the corporate ranks.

There is a lot of gender stereotyping going on in these comments. Women and men exhibit a range of behaviors with some women being very aggressive and risk taking, and some men being nuturing and risk averse.

Diverse Boards vs a group of good ol' boys almost always provide better governance. Gender is one way to get diversity as is insisting on truly independent Directors, industry experts and academics vs stacking the deck with management cronies and investor representatives as in all-too many Boards who looked the other way on excessive compensation and questionable incentive packages.

I don't agree that President Obama is collaborative as Marty suggested. He's ramming the biggest spending prgrams in history down our throats and trying to silence objections with his, "I won," comments. Barack is ruthless and incredibly ambitious, as HIllary learned too late. He's hardly Obambi or YoMama...

First, there is/would be no support for change. Second, there would be no critical mass favoring different thinking. Although men, ideologically left, right, and center will make all of the appropriate noises about being concerned primarily with competence, yada, yada, yada. We all know that's a Pinocchio moment. Women attend the same MBA programs as men do. Why would one expect different outcomes?

In the final analysis, women getting through the glass ceiling into executive posts requires that they be 'one of the guys' -- i.e., demonstrate cold-hearted ruthlessness -- in order to be taken seriously. Thus, the only change in Wall Street top offices would be guys in pantyhose, showing cleavage, paying too much for their suits and shoes.

Women can be every bit as greedy and short-sighted as men. The important question is, what attributes does the system select for, and can those incentives be altered?

Even the title reinforces stereotypes such as those mentioned in these comments and by the responders. This is a disservice to an important topic-the failure of financial institutions to make money for investors while ensuring appropriate risk was taken.

My additional comment is that boards who recruit women tend to see the bigger picture which includes having not just conflict of interest policies but a broader range of more 'progressive' practices such hiring inclusively and the like.

Second, risk is relative and subject to not just institutional culture, but the culture at large which says that women are not good at taking risks and further hammers many women leaders into the narrow space between a rock and a hard place.

Further, in research on women leaders, women leaders must negotiate the very narrow ledge between the demands of leadership and the perceptions others have of women in leadership positions (as well as their own). These perceptions can be unconsciously held and motivate the holders into seeing women leaders as failures in many dimensions, risk being a key one.

Finally, there is interesting cross cultural research on women leaders that shows that regardless of how successful leadership is defined, women tend to be seen as not having those successful qualities.

I don't think it would have made any difference. Women may not be "macho aggressive", but they are "nurturing and consensus building" and I don't think they would stand up to these guys.

Honestly, women can hardly break the glass ceiling. There are women on boards and in leadership roles but they are few and far between - and some, probably many, are tokens.

There are those that look like they are risk takers, like Carly Fiorina, who are realy not intelectually equiped to assess risk and really not qualified for such a job. So, like men, some women in high corporate roles have been promoted beyond their abilities and rely, rightly or wrongly, on subordinates to advise them.

I think all of corporate America is full of people promoted beyond their capabilities and this, more than gender is the real problem.

Yes, of course, everything would be different if women ran the world. Blah, blah, blah...

I've not seen one bit of difference between women CEO's, Congress Women, Senators, Governors or women Mayors than any Male in the same job. Just as inept, corrupt, and greedy as anyone else.

So much for social promotion.

What's the old saying..."Would you like to speak to the man in charge, or to the woman who knows what's going on?"

I think women could have a positive influence, but the overall issue may be the relentless demand for profits no matter what and a focus on short-term rather than long-term outcomes. Executive compensation, in money and stock, needs to be revamped and scaled back a bit. Egos, arrogance and stupidity need to be tackled, along with corruption.

Some balance also needs to be interjected into the system, along with some rules and adult oversight. Accountability needs to have some meaning again. The last 8+ years haven't had much of any of this.

Quick, give me a nitro tablet. Anyone that thinks women are not money hungry, asset loving individuals equal to their male counterparts has never been thru a divorce.

My gut feeling is weak women tend to delegate, and empower aggression. The better question is whether Annette Nazareth failed in her role at the SEC because she was not a risk taker? She clearly could have made a difference if she had caught this. Or is she just in the wrong place at the wrong time and would do her greatest service by assisting Timothy Geithner in addressing the current economic woes.

First you have to get enough women in the boardrooms of the major corporations in the U.S. and world. It's been 24 years since I got my doctorate degree and I am appalled by the small percentage of women at the top, especially since women have been outnumbering men in higher education for probably 20 years now.

Circa 1983, I was rejected for a commercial loan officer position at the bank I worked for in Northeastern PA. I was told that I did not fit the "personality type", that I was too methodical. (There were no female commercial loan officers.) By 1985, the bank was in serious trouble due to massive defaults from timeshares operators and resorts in the Poconos. Auditors' opinion was that most of the commercial loans were largely undocumented and should never have been made. The bank was sold to PNC.

Perhaps the "personality type" of a commercial lender should have been more methodical and less "handshake over a beer at the hockey game". Regrettably, it seems like things haven't changed so much in the last two decades.

LOL if the problem is sexist then the *real* problem should be obvious. People relying on the government to solve their problems instead of fending for themselves. And clearly that is a problem for too many members of both sexes. This discussion is pointless.

To put your question in historical perspective, would it be equally fair to ask if women (as warlords) would have run the feudal system aground? Probably not. Though tantalizing it's simplistic to characterize the Wall Street meltdown in terms of testosterone poisoning. Instead, consider what happens when "Yin" has no "Yang" as a counterbalancing force to achieve balance. Yin ends up lopsided. Systematically speaking, the meltdown occured because the American form of capitalism has become a lpsided system skewed to reward devotees of short term profitability versus long term business sustainability. We've lost our soul. Today other perspectives are needed in business boardrooms. And in a consumer-driven economy companies will benefit from selecting directors from the diversity aggregate that includes ethnic minorities, white women, gays/lesbians, physically challenged and recent (legal) immigrants. They're the ones that make over 90% of consumer purchasing decisions and they are tomorrow's America. Pssst: Don't say they aren't qualified for board service or that you would love to have one on your board if you could just find them. Trust me; they're here.

Leadership is the catalyst for human potential and the evolution of humankind. Given this definition, how can leadership itself employ qualities that reflect only 50% of the population? The question is not whether men or women are better or more effective but how we access BOTH masculine and feminine attributes to create a culture of leadership that fully maximizes human potential.

According to social science research men are seen as more individualistic, domineering, control-seeking and aggressive; while women are viewed as building relationships and community; emotionally oriented, and more supportive of others. Neither is better. Germane Consulting conducted research to ascertain whether and how the presence of more women in managerial and leadership roles over the past 15 years has changed the way people think about and practice leadership. Interviews with 25 men and 25 women with at least 15 years in executive roles indicate that the following qualities are more important for effective leadership today as compared to 15 years ago: intuitive thinking, collaboration, emotional savvy, inclusiveness and support for others. Participants also identified these attributes as stereotypically feminine. Decision making - viewed as a more masculine trait - was as important as it was 15 years ago, but aggressive masculine behavior was both less important and less acceptable.

Does this conclusion relate to the question of whether women would have prevented or responded differently to the financial crisis? Possibly. Because women tend to be more concerned with relational and social values: They may have asked how the building of wealth for the few would benefit society. The real problem is that we have a culture of leadership that is out of balance. It is represented by an overabundance of individualistic and aggressive behaviors and too little relational and communal values. We must bear in mind, however, that if women had been over-represented and men under-represented in our leadership culture, we would simply be having a different set of problems today. What we need is a leadership culture that integrates both feminine and masculine characteristics.

Dr. Anne Perschel
Leadership and Organizational Psychologist
President, Germane Consulting

Another way of looking at risk adversity differences between genders would be to see if whistle blowers alerting the public of risky behaviors tend to favor one gender over the other.