Merit VS Affirmative Action

"[The Liberal government is applying] gender-based analysis [to policy-making because we all need] to be smart about getting the very best out of all of our citizens and making the very best out of our economy, because women entrepreneurs tend to make better choices than others."
"We've seen it in study after study."
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

"We believe companies with diverse boards are more likely to achieve superior financial performance."
"Research from Credit Suisse and Catalyst Inc. has shown that companies with higher female representation have delivered higher returns."
Mark Machin, head, Canada Pension Plan Investment Board

"We find clear evidence [of greater performance among firms with women in decision-making roles. Even companies with only one female director] generated a compound excess return per annum of 3.8 percent for investors over the previous last decade."
Credit Suisse, 2016 report on corporate gender performance 

"Research conducted by consulting firms and financial institutions is not as rigorous as peer-reviewed academic research."
"[The link between board diversity and performance is] very weak. [When academics examined a few studies they discovered] the relationship between board gender diversity and company performance is either non-existent [effectively zero] or very weakly positive."
Katherine Klein, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania

"Does Gender Matter? Female Representation on Corporate Boards and Firm Financial Performances -- a Meta=analysis", a 2015 European academic paper, found that the link was "small to non-significant", concluding "Mere representation of females on corporate boards is not related to firm financial performance." On the other hand, of course, this does not rule out that women should be given the same, equal opportunities as men to sit on boards if and when they qualify equally.

Leading to the possibility that research behind those claims of [gender] diversity's impact on company performance may just be suspect, serving an ideology of female empowerment at the expense of corporate best interests, although there is nothing inherently amiss in re-adjusting the gender balance on boards and the corporate ladder of achievement through merit alone, making no adjustment for gender.

It appears beyond fanciful that gender alone can impact economic and business outcomes simply by re-adjusting the makeup of board level participants to expect massive changes in corporate performance. A wide range of factors drive corporate performance well beyond adjusting for an increase in female directors to enhance performance. The differential between company interests where consumer good production is not the business of mining companies and nor can retailers be equivalent to oil companies.

The Economist not so long ago reported that experiments in Europe with quotas are now widely thought of as a failure: "Gender quotas at board level in Europe have done little to boost corporate performance or to help women lower down", it concluded.

And then there is the inimitable observations borne of vast experience in the world of gender differentials, empowerment and recognition of superiority as when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau observed that when groups of construction workers are sent to small communities to build pipelines and other infrastructure they impose "social impacts, because they're mostly male construction workers". Blast those male construction workers and the impact of the trauma they're responsible for.

In fact, it took no time at all for females in the construction business to round on their prime minister to upbraid him for his expert opinion on an issue he knows little-to-nothing about in his zeal to promote women and demote men. He bases his opinions not only on his self-declared feminist credentials but on market research papers claiming the installation of female corporate directors and executives makes for more profitable corporations.

Men, needless to say, come out looking not quite as capable of making sound decisions, from these 'research papers' given high credence in the business world where lib-left perspectives appear to have become entrenched, with the implication that too many men dominating a board is inferior to boards with an equal number of women to men ... or perchance women dominating a board with their superior wisdom. Where's merit? Why, fully ensconced in gender of course.

On the other hand, for every study purporting to demonstrate the advantage to corporations of having women in positions of authority there are other studies that lay waste to the 'evidence' that women present on boards or in executive suites generate improved financial results. It is, however, human nature to gravitate to conclusions that tend to bolster our already-conceived and determined notions  unwilling to budge to counter-'evidence'.

Recently, Financial Post Magazine had editor Andy Holloway pose a headline question: "Will adding more female directors improve a company's results?" And the response? "Maybe not, but the pressure to do so is not going away", despite that the quick analysis of the market performance of the TSX 60 by the magazine indicates little or no relationship with board gender diversity.

"Fortunately, as Alice Eagly points out in her analysis, [Alice Eagly, professor of psychology and management at Northwestern, and one of the most renowned researchers on female leaders, delved into the academic research on the topic. She summarized what social scientists had learned about women's impact on corporate boards."
"Let’s just say, it doesn’t look good.] there are sophisticated statistical techniques that can control for these issues. What happens when we use them? Basically the impact of female board members on financial performance disappears."
"One large study even found a small reverse effect [greater gender diversity produced worse financial outcomes]. But, for the most part, it seems that gender diversity in the boardroom has no effect on corporate outcomes [and, if it exists, it’s tiny]."
Forbes