Fewer Women Run Big Companies Than Men Named John

Some insightful commentors are pointing out that James, Robert, John, and William are very common names. Yes, for White Males.

Also interesting is the old-fashioned commonness of the CEO names. These names dropped from the most popular lists of American baby names some time ago. But these senior achievers seem to have had traditionally minded parents. Does that tell us anything?

Corporate cultures, not just education, are a big reason behind the low number of women in high tech. This is the exact reason why some companies try to create a different dynamic, because not only is diversity okay, it actually helps you create a better product. It's unfortunate the more businesses haven't realized that yet because they are only holding themselves back.

Explain to me again why any female American would vote Republican?

John is the second most popular name in the world.

Muhammad is the most popular name in the world.

Well obviously since females are graduating with 60-65% of the Bachelor degrees, it's obviously discrimination if 60-65% of women are not CEO'S the day after graduation. If not then obviously we need affirmative action to get more women in the top seats. We know girls are vastly superior than boys on skills tests in early school now, and yet these women keep having babies and leave the workforce when they are older! Damm patriarchy with its sexist expectations. The diversity value of having a CEO with a name other than John is obviously worth discriminating against men (affirmative action).

(/sarcasm off) So after 40 years of discrimination to give (mostly white) women the upper hand over men, what have we gained? Are there those who believe we need another 40? I know that as long as intentional discrimination that benefits women (affirmative action) exists, there are legitimate reasons to be wary of the broader female class. Our society has shown we can maturely handle discussion on how Affirmative action among the Black population appears overall to have caused harm, including loss of cross-racial solidarity. Perhaps it's time to talk about the same for women.

So I should have named one of my daughters John?

Why not just make it the ratio of men to women? You know, the actual number in which we're interested?

Surely more women than men named Juan.

I had a classmate who claimed she quit engineering because there were more Daves than women.

This is the snarkiest article I have ever read in the New York Times. I hope the authors are as self satisfied as I am turned off.

According to the Department of Labor, women account for about 52 percent of all workers in the high-paying management, professional and related occupations. There's a pool of potential CEOs -- but Boards continue to select, predominantly, white men. And white men continue to get their undies in a wad whenever someone points out an obvious contributor to the status quo -- white, male privilege.

Here's a paradox for my friends on the left: Many of you have pined on these pages for economic growth we had in the days of high marginal tax rates and union enrollment covering a third of all workers. Back then, though, we also had near zero women CEOs. In other words, by your own reckoning, the economy has gotten worse since more women have become CEOs. QED

Although I do support the principle that well-qualified women should be competing on a level playing field with their male counterparts for top-level corporate positions, I can't help wondering if good old-fashioned male aggressiveness is playing a part in the so-called "glass ceiling" effect. If men tend to behave more aggressively than women, which I suspect is generally true despite many obvious exceptions, and if aggressiveness is an effective aid to getting ahead in this dog-eat-dog world, which I also suspect is generally true, then it follows that it is easier for men to ascend the corporate ladder because of their more aggressive goal-seeking behavior—not necessarily because of their gender per se, and not necessarily because of their superior qualifications. Needless to say, it would be a better world if aggressiveness were not so highly-prized (nor so amply rewarded) in modern society, but I certainly don't expect this aspect of the human condition to change anytime soon.

"Sure indicator that the glass ceiling remains firmly in place"

Hang on. Says who, you the writer? If you show A is true, the onus is on you to ALSO show that A implies B, and you haven't done that. Just because there are few women at the top, does not imply glass ceiling (which itself implies discrimination). Women drop out of the potential pool of candidates for leadership for many reasons. You have not provided evidence that discrimination is one of those reasons, therefore you have undermined the point you were trying to make.

Didn't Sheryl Sandberg make this comparison in "Lean In" (more than women in...) She deserves a footnote here.

like blacks women have become a subset to the Democratic party, women will vote for Hillary just because she's a women as blacks voted for Obama for the same reason. These articles only help propagate that. They never talk about how many women as opposed to men interview for such jobs, Or seek such jobs. Just that the United States should employ an equal number of people regardless of qualifications or education. Like Obama and the left say's "it's a matter of equality".

You forgot to point out that men with the names James, John, Michael, and Robert win the lottery more often than others.

Over 15% of all boys born in the United States in the 1950s were named James, Robert, John, or William.

(Indee, three of those four names were at the top of the Social Security Agency's male baby name popularity list for that decade, and an interesting -- if unanswered -- question is why the author chose to swap out "Michael" (2d most popular) for William (6th most popular).)

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/decades/names1950s.html

As most present-day CEOS were born in the 1950s (and are now 55-65 years old) it is little wonder that those names are common among CEOs (and Senators, etc.)

This "index" is going to be heavily influenced by changes in taste in baby naming.

By the 1980s, none of James, Robert, John, or William was a top-5 name.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/decades/names1980s.html

But perhaps it wasn't the authors' point to propose a useful tool for measuring the existence of the "Glass Ceiling."

Actually, there's probably another lesson here. The fact CEOs all have these boring names points to the role of CEOs in society: conformity. These people are not geniuses or especially talented. They're predictable people who can be counted on to not upset the boat and continue the neoliberal march towards turning everything over to the private sector and the ruling class.

Let's celebrate the fact women don't want to become CEOs, because CEOs are psychopathic garbage!

This media obsession with female CEOs is of no concern to 99.99% of women.

Thanks for helping me choose my future sons' names!

White male privilege is widespread and embraced by almost everyone in this society including most women. Many women get their revenge at the divorce court but for minorities there is little hope for change.

Well, shattering the so-called Glass Ceiling won't do anything for the majority of women, any more than the majority of men can take solace from the fact that they have a .0001% chance of making the big time. Plus, there is every reason to believe that female executives will not, as those with rose-tinted spectacles try to believe, lend other women a helping hand on their way up. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Maybe women should start their own companies based on their own R&D and then hire and promote whoever they want and quit whining. How 'bout that?!

Why not an analysis of the ratio of men to women, regardless of men's names? By narrowing the subset of men only to those with the names in the article will greatly distort the glass ceiling index.

Why on earth did you invent some silly metric instead of using the far-more-damning simple gender ratio? Or even worse, throw in small sample-sizes like the current Supreme Court?!

These are fascinating findings, Professor Wolfers, and they offer a strong reminder that so much more has to be done on this front, even the figures you show largely reflect 1945-1975 birth years. It will be quite instructive to compare this data to the 1965-1995 birth year data in 2035 (adjusting the male names chosen). That assumes that the age one acquires and maintains "elite power" or an "elite position" in this country will 40-70, independent of gender equality; it may skew younger by then. As for the significant partisan divide by gender in Congress, perhaps we could look to the PPI data published last week, analyzed by Amanda Marcotte of Slate and others, which shows us how different Republican women are not only from Democratic women but Republican men. Specifically, the findings reveal that GOP women identify with strong religious beliefs. Does that make them less likely to run and therefore less likely to be nominated by their party because religion is not what motivates the Republican donor class; it is animated much more by economics. Do these women face the choice of downplaying their religion or risk looking too strange to donors that they need to keep their campaigns afloat? A second reason for the partisan divide might be that GOP female representatives who do *not* strongly identify as religious seem to be inherently distrusted by base voters in their party, particularly when those women work with women from the other political party on anything.