While reading up on the current financial crisis I came cross an article in the Financial Times in which it was written that women are being appointed to CEO positions in banks in order to clean up after macho management styles. The article suggests that women are less inclined to take risk, therefore are less likely to jeopardize the company’s financial assets. One country that put its faith in women’s risk-averseness is Iceland, which appointed two women to head their newly nationalized banks. However, are women less aggressive in their management styles and are they able to rescue businesses from plunging into a deeper crisis?
Figures for 2008 show that only 12% of board directors are women and the trends indicate that it won’t be until 2050 that there will be an equal number of men and women on company boards. Evidence shows that women executives in the US achieved a 53 percent higher return on equity than their male counterparts. Yet, the results do not specify how the figures were achieved. The FT article stated that not all women executives are careful in making decisions. The newspaper carried out research of its own and found that women make as aggressive decisions as men. What is more, they are very ambitious and have the same drive as men.
The executive boardroom has always been a place dominated by men. Women have had to come a long way to show that they can be as good, or even better than male CEO’s. Research by the Women and Work Commission in the UK suggests that if women’s skills were better harnessed the country would gain about £23 billion. Nevertheless, there are few women on boards and it will be extremely difficult to change the financial crisis around, however the current situation may be a triggering point for the cultural change that is about to happen in executive boardrooms.
[ramka][srodtytul]Vocabulary[/srodtytul]
[b]Word-of-the-week[/b]
