By Emma Hughes, HR Manager at Wolfestone

Wolfestone Director Anna Bastek

Is Wolfestone’s success down to this lady?

Wolfestone Translation owes its success to its female director Anna Bastek, apparently…

The Credit Suisse Research Institute has shared its findings that, out of the 2360 companies measured globally over the past 6 years, those with at least one woman on their board have been more profitable. Those companies reported a growth in turnover of 14% compared to a 10% growth of companies with no female directors.

Why do women = profitability?

Credit Suisse found seven explanations:

1. People, including investors, believe companies with women are better businesses.

2. Evidence suggests people work harder when there is gender diversity in the workplace.

3. Women make good leaders and mentors.

4. Hiring both men and women means having access to a larger talent pool.

5. Because women are often expected to make household spending decisions, they know what consumers want.

6. Evidence suggests that having more women on a board improves corporate governance.

7. Companies avoid bad decisions, because studies show businesswomen tend to be more risk-adverse than businessmen.

Does this mean Roy Allkin, Wolfestone’s other [MALE] Director, can take no credit for the company’s continued growth?

I think what we need to do here is emphasise that it was DIVERSITY in the boardrooms that contributed to the success of the companies, just as it has in Wolfestone. I’m sure there are many examples of men who are better leaders than their female counterparts and many that are more risk adverse for that matter. It would be interesting to explore this further and determine how many different sexual orientations, ethnic minorities and disabilities also formed part of the board of these more profitable companies.

It’s well known that women are generally underrepresented in the board room and according to the BBC website, only 5.7% of the executive, board-level directors of FTSE 150 companies are women.

Are these companies successful in spite of the lack of women, and therefore disproving the findings of Credit Suisse? Or could they have been even more successful if they had just employed a woman?

Let us know your thoughts.


Liked this blog? Then feel free to click on those buttons below to share it on Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.

Want to comment? All you have to do is enter your comment, then your name and email into Disqus and press register. That’s it!

For more information about Wolfestone services:

Document translation servicesLocalisation servicesTranscreation servicesMultilingual SEO servicesProofreadingVoiceover servicesInterpreting servicesMultimedia servicesLegal translation servicesOther types of translation

The professional translation services you can trust!

by Wolfestone Admin

5 responses to “Do Women = Profitability?”

  1. Many of the points above are subjective and far too generalisitc.
    Looking to recruit a woman to a board just because it’s seen as ‘the right thing to do’ is a flawed tactic and one that should be met with caution.
    There are loads of men and women who are right for being on a board but there are also loads
    that aren’t.
    What our companies really need are the best people who earn their jobs through merit, irrelevant of their gender.

    • Emma Hughes says:

      Hi James, I completely agree with your comments. I think the best person should always be picked for the job regardless of their gender and I think bringing in quotas could just result in companies picking the wrong people out of fear or box ticking, the consequences of which could be catastrophic for both parties. What about when you have 2 candidates of equal worth, both capable of doing the job well, with the same skills and knowledge and one is male and one is female?

  2. Molly Barbour says:

    I can see how an article like this would help you ingratiate yourself with your boss, but I’m not sure how it’s supposed to add value for anyone else.

    • Emma Hughes says:

      Hi Molly. Thanks for reading my article and leaving a comment. In my article I go on to explain that in fact that diversity is what’s important, not gender. That is where the value is added. Would you agree?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *