Corporate relics of Canada ...

[jacee]

Corporate relics aren’t ready for the future

While the world has changed and so has the face of Canada, it seems that most of the people running Canadian companies live in an alternative reality where their colleagues are white, few of their peers are women, they have no visible minorities on their boards, they’ve never hung out with an aboriginal person, they don’t have friends in Africa, they don’t speak Mandarin, and they don’t take vacations in India. That’s a shame for them but spells disaster for Canada’s future prosperity.

I was thinking about this last week when I listened to a young Asian Canadian woman describe her concerns about finding a good job. She worried that she had a number of strikes against her. She was a woman, she didn’t have connections and was a visible minority. In fact, she represented the future of Canada. She was bright, spoke two Asian languages, had lived abroad and had a top-notch education. I told her that any Canadian company would be crazy not to hire her.

But then I reconsidered what I’d said. I went to a conference of top executives and there were very few women, very few visible minorities, and almost no aboriginal people. Later that night, I sat beside a senior executive from a top Canadian company at dinner and out of the blue he asked me if I would give him artificial respiration if he had an allergic reaction to his soup. Instead of being indignant, I just wondered how this relic from the 1950s would ever relate to an Indonesian businesswoman from Surabaya or a young, hip Chinese entrepreneur from Tianjin.

Most Canadian CEOs don’t seem to understand or be able to capitalize on our diverse population. In fact, if you look at the numbers, it’s just the opposite.

Is this still the norm in Canadian corporate leadership?

Is sexual harassment still the most common tactic of powerful men to competent women in the workworld?

I recognize the tactic well.

I had hoped these assholes would have been long gone by my daughter's generation.

Have they spawned mini-assholes?

Is this just a disease of the drunk-with-power?

If we're still fighting the battles of the 1970's, is there any hope that corporate Canada really has what it takes to do business effectively in THIS century?

Will there be change-from-within in such corporations, or will they just become obsolete, outrun by new businesses that 'get' doing business in an environment that includes women and people of different cultures?

Question for the businessmen here: When you encounter such powerful corporate relics, do you 'tee-hee' along with them, or recognize their behaviour for what it is: A serious impediment to business?

[Wild Bill]

Corporate relics aren’t ready for the future

While the world has changed and so has the face of Canada, it seems that most of the people running Canadian companies live in an alternative reality where their colleagues are white, few of their peers are women, they have no visible minorities on their boards, they’ve never hung out with an aboriginal person, they don’t have friends in Africa, they don’t speak Mandarin, and they don’t take vacations in India. That’s a shame for them but spells disaster for Canada’s future prosperity.

I was thinking about this last week when I listened to a young Asian Canadian woman describe her concerns about finding a good job. She worried that she had a number of strikes against her. She was a woman, she didn’t have connections and was a visible minority. In fact, she represented the future of Canada. She was bright, spoke two Asian languages, had lived abroad and had a top-notch education. I told her that any Canadian company would be crazy not to hire her.

But then I reconsidered what I’d said. I went to a conference of top executives and there were very few women, very few visible minorities, and almost no aboriginal people. Later that night, I sat beside a senior executive from a top Canadian company at dinner and out of the blue he asked me if I would give him artificial respiration if he had an allergic reaction to his soup. Instead of being indignant, I just wondered how this relic from the 1950s would ever relate to an Indonesian businesswoman from Surabaya or a young, hip Chinese entrepreneur from Tianjin.

Most Canadian CEOs don’t seem to understand or be able to capitalize on our diverse population. In fact, if you look at the numbers, it’s just the opposite.

Is this still the norm in Canadian corporate leadership?

Is sexual harassment still the most common tactic of powerful men to competent women in the workworld?

I recognize the tactic well.

I had hoped these assholes would have been long gone by my daughter's generation.

Have they spawned mini-assholes?

Is this just a disease of the drunk-with-power?

If we're still fighting the battles of the 1970's, is there any hope that corporate Canada really has what it takes to do business effectively in THIS century?

Will there be change-from-within in such corporations, or will they just become obsolete, outrun by new businesses that 'get' doing business in an environment that includes women and people of different cultures?

Question for the businessmen here: When you encounter such powerful corporate relics, do you 'tee-hee' along with them, or recognize their behaviour for what it is: A serious impediment to business?

You are mixing two completely different skill sets. Running a business and having social skills that are "inclusive" and "progressive" are two totally different things.

The fact is that the only reward in business is profit. If you fail to appreciate the worth of an employee because she is a woman or a visible minority, that is perhaps a shame morally but it counts for diddley-squat as far as profit and loss.

This is not always true. It just happens that right now we have high unemployment so companies always have a surplus of available new hires. If the person running the company is a "relic" and wants to hire only "white bread" its very easy to do. There are a very large number of white folks desperate for a job as well!

If a manager is less discriminating and more fair in his hiring he will not necessarily make any more profit than if he hired only as regards to his biases. There may be an exception in a retail environment. If his store is in an ethnic neighbourhood then it makes sense to have people of that ethnicity on the front line. Why? Because many customers are biased! They feel more comfortable dealing with salespeople of their own particular persuasion!

There is no "Fairness Council" that will reward a fair-minded manager with CASH! He might win a humanitarian award and still go bankrupt.

Whoever wrote the article you cited obviously has no mainstream business background. The world is the way it is, not the way we dream it should be.

I would be the first to agree things aren't fair but so what? What do my feelings have to do with the price of eggs?

If and when our economy turns around and unemployment drops to the point where companies have difficulty in finding suitable new hires we will see a lot of biases thrown away. "Relic" managers will no longer have the luxury of being unfair. They will be happy to get anybody who is qualified, regardless of race or more importantly, culture.

Canada likely has more "relic" managers because our economy has been more protected, particularly by government support with protectionist policies. A manager who has not moved with the times is not likely to be forced to change by any fear of losing his job. Canadian business does not lag behind only with social and cultural issues. We have not modernized our businesses nearly as much as other countries have done with new technologies. Why? Things like a 65 cent dollar usually made it unnecessary! Now they are scrambling to catch up.

You are railing against an unfairly low percentage of visible minority and female officers while the entire crew is doing a poor job of bailing to keep the ship afloat!

If someone waved a magic wand and made a more fair representation among the captains, the ship would likely still sink!

This is why so many leftwing countries have such poor economies. They don't have enough tractors but instead of fixing that problem first they instead focus on programs to make sure they have a fair percentage of female tractor drivers.

[Michael Hardner]

This is an opinion piece with not a single shred of supporting evidence cited. What is needed is a comparison of Canada's corporate position in relation to its competitors in the West. Are we closer to Asia than France ? Than Sweden ? How about our #1 partner the US ?

Corporate headquarters are still mostly in Toronto which is by some accounts the most diverse city in the world. The large companies are also always looking towards smaller start-ups, many of which are started by new immigrants.

[Michael Hardner]

You are mixing two completely different skill sets. Running a business and having social skills that are "inclusive" and "progressive" are two totally different things.

Agreed.

The fact is that the only reward in business is profit. If you fail to appreciate the worth of an employee because she is a woman or a visible minority, that is perhaps a shame morally but it counts for diddley-squat as far as profit and loss.

While that is true, I'd like to point out a few things:

1) There's no reason today to not have women and minorities in equal proportion to their participation on society, except discrimination.

2) If you discriminate, you assure yourself that you're not accepting talent from the full pool of available people, and you're putting yourself at a disadvantage.

3) If you discriminate, then people will rightly perceive that your workplace doesn't promote based on merit - that it's probably a clique - unfair, with no chance to progress.

4) There are no private corps that I have heard about where there is so-called reverse discrimination.

If a manager is less discriminating and more fair in his hiring he will not necessarily make any more profit than if he hired only as regards to his biases.

Not necessarily, but ... as I point out, you're limiting the talent pool you're pulling from.

There may be an exception in a retail environment. If his store is in an ethnic neighbourhood then it makes sense to have people of that ethnicity on the front line. Why? Because many customers are biased! They feel more comfortable dealing with salespeople of their own particular persuasion!

That can work for hiring white people too.

Canada likely has more "relic" managers because our economy has been more protected, particularly by government support with protectionist policies. A manager who has not moved with the times is not likely to be forced to change by any fear of losing his job.

Interesting perspective. Do you think this is true for manufacturing and heavy industry ?

[Fletch 27]

They are long gone... These relics. In Canada to the disappeared 10 years ago. John Roth of nortel was the closest the what you "label" a relic.

RIM has more director or vp level women than men I would estimate now. Very smart and articles and the workforce is a pleasant mix of all nationalities and genders.

I think the opinion piece you provided the link to is simply kept around by women who didn't strive for that education and feel the need to point fingers for shortcomings. The work and the business place is very equal opportunity these days.

Corporate relics aren’t ready for the future

While the world has changed and so has the face of Canada, it seems that most of the people running Canadian companies live in an alternative reality where their colleagues are white, few of their peers are women, they have no visible minorities on their boards, they’ve never hung out with an aboriginal person, they don’t have friends in Africa, they don’t speak Mandarin, and they don’t take vacations in India. That’s a shame for them but spells disaster for Canada’s future prosperity.

I was thinking about this last week when I listened to a young Asian Canadian woman describe her concerns about finding a good job. She worried that she had a number of strikes against her. She was a woman, she didn’t have connections and was a visible minority. In fact, she represented the future of Canada. She was bright, spoke two Asian languages, had lived abroad and had a top-notch education. I told her that any Canadian company would be crazy not to hire her.

But then I reconsidered what I’d said. I went to a conference of top executives and there were very few women, very few visible minorities, and almost no aboriginal people. Later that night, I sat beside a senior executive from a top Canadian company at dinner and out of the blue he asked me if I would give him artificial respiration if he had an allergic reaction to his soup. Instead of being indignant, I just wondered how this relic from the 1950s would ever relate to an Indonesian businesswoman from Surabaya or a young, hip Chinese entrepreneur from Tianjin.

Most Canadian CEOs don’t seem to understand or be able to capitalize on our diverse population. In fact, if you look at the numbers, it’s just the opposite.

Is this still the norm in Canadian corporate leadership?

Is sexual harassment still the most common tactic of powerful men to competent women in the workworld?

I recognize the tactic well.

I had hoped these assholes would have been long gone by my daughter's generation.

Have they spawned mini-assholes?

Is this just a disease of the drunk-with-power?

If we're still fighting the battles of the 1970's, is there any hope that corporate Canada really has what it takes to do business effectively in THIS century?

Will there be change-from-within in such corporations, or will they just become obsolete, outrun by new businesses that 'get' doing business in an environment that includes women and people of different cultures?

Question for the businessmen here: When you encounter such powerful corporate relics, do you 'tee-hee' along with them, or recognize their behaviour for what it is: A serious impediment to business?

Edited October 6, 2012 by Fletch 27

[Wild Bill]

Agreed.

While that is true, I'd like to point out a few things:

1) There's no reason today to not have women and minorities in equal proportion to their participation on society, except discrimination.

2) If you discriminate, you assure yourself that you're not accepting talent from the full pool of available people, and you're putting yourself at a disadvantage.

3) If you discriminate, then people will rightly perceive that your workplace doesn't promote based on merit - that it's probably a clique - unfair, with no chance to progress.

4) There are no private corps that I have heard about where there is so-called reverse discrimination.

Not necessarily, but ... as I point out, you're limiting the talent pool you're pulling from.

That can work for hiring white people too.

Interesting perspective. Do you think this is true for manufacturing and heavy industry ?

Mostly I agree Michael. What disagreements I have are mostly with the logistics of how things do or don't work.

The idea of more female representation in business and industry often ignores on giant and obvious fact - far fewer women are applying for management positions than men! Far fewer of these women are qualified!

It's like complaining about not having half of your firemen positions filled with women, when only 5 % of your applicants were female anyway.

Attempts to artificially FORCE a 50/50 mix can make things much worse. Do a nose count of male teachers at your closest elementary school. Then google up the number of male principals.

I absolutely agree about limiting your talent pool. My point is just that in times of high unemployment, you have so many applicants for every job that the effect is swamped out anyway.

As for public perceptions, who cares? When people are desperate for a job they tend to keep their personal opinions to themselves.

And as for manufacturing and heavy industry, it would seem Michael that today here in Ontario they are so desperately trying to survive that I don't think they have the luxury of thinking about their hiring policies. Likely they haven't hired anyone new in months, if not years. Here in Hamilton I don't think there have been any new hires at the steel mills for decades!

[Guest]

Agreed.

While that is true, I'd like to point out a few things:

1) There's no reason today to not have women and minorities in equal proportion to their participation on society, except discrimination.

That's not true at all.

In order for that to be the case, all of the women and minorities would have had to have grown up in the same culture, made all the same decisions, went to all the same courses, etc. It might be the case in another fifty years, but not yet.

For instance, if you're looking for a CEO with forty years of business experience the pool of resumes you're going to get is going to disproportionately white and male. Because forty years ago the business schools were disproportionately white and male.

So without affirmative action, which is discrimination, we just have to wait.

Personally, I think that businesses look at the bottom line, and will always hire to make the most profit. I can't imagine why any company would discriminate.

[Michael Hardner]

The idea of more female representation in business and industry often ignores on giant and obvious fact - far fewer women are applying for management positions than men! Far fewer of these women are qualified!

It's like complaining about not having half of your firemen positions filled with women, when only 5 % of your applicants were female anyway.

Link me that, Batman. I don't buy it. We're at 30-40% of middle managers to line workers being women now where I work (corporate IT) and hardly any executives.

As for public perceptions, who cares? When people are desperate for a job they tend to keep their personal opinions to themselves.

You want to keep your workers happy, that's who cares. Or who should care: management.

Likely they haven't hired anyone new in months, if not years. Here in Hamilton I don't think there have been any new hires at the steel mills for decades!

Maybe they'll benefit from some fresh blood. Or maybe they'll die for the reasons you've stated anyway. We'll see.

[jacee]

You are mixing two completely different skill sets. Running a business and having social skills that are "inclusive" and "progressive" are two totally different things.

The fact is that the only reward in business is profit. If you fail to appreciate the worth of an employee because she is a woman or a visible minority, that is perhaps a shame morally but it counts for diddley-squat as far as profit and loss.

Spoken like a true relic.

Tell me Bill ... why do you assume that the woman being harassed is "an employee"?

Catherine McKenna is executive director of Canadian Lawyers Abroad, co-president of the Banff Forum and a lecturer at the Munk School for Global Affairs.

You're stuck in the 1970's too, Bill. Same old worn out arguments.

That's the point of the article, that Canadian corporate relics have no friggen clue how to do business these days.

Those aren't "social skills" Bill.

Those are business skills ... moneymaking skills.

[Argus]

As per visible minorities. Most are still immigrants, and the big strike against them is poor communications skills. That they can speak a foreign language is irrelevant unless your company is an exporter looking to that market.

As per women: the issues I have is that women tend to cause a lot more headaches with interpersonal problems. Men seem better able to get along in groups. But if you have women in a group, sure as hell some of them hate some of the rest. When I was a lower level manager I was constantly mediating and refereeing women who hated each other. The manager I replaced (female) had gone on stress leave due to the constant bickering.

The second issue is that women are too social. They talk too much, and they like meetings far too much. I purposefully make up meetings in my calender so that they find it hard to find an available period for me to be 'free' for their pointless, long-winded meetings where they'll have endless discussions to get a consensus that will never happen and that ultimately decide nothing. In thirteen years in the government I've never attended a meeting that wasn't 90% wasted time, and at least two thirds were 100% wasted time.

[Wild Bill]

Spoken like a true relic.

Tell me Bill ... why do you assume that the woman being harassed is "an employee"?

Catherine McKenna is executive director of Canadian Lawyers Abroad, co-president of the Banff Forum and a lecturer at the Munk School for Global Affairs.

You're stuck in the 1970's too, Bill. Same old worn out arguments.

That's the point of the article, that Canadian corporate relics have no friggen clue how to do business these days.

Those aren't "social skills" Bill.

Those are business skills ... moneymaking skills.

I wasn't focusing on harassment. Seems to me that's a legal matter. If Ms. McKenna thinks she has a valid case she should sue their asses off!

As for social skills being moneymaking skills, could you explain why that is so? I truly don't see the connection but if you feel you do it should not be hard to explain it in terms of money.

[jacee]

Again, think most of you are making the author's point, stuck in the same old quagmire, trotting out the same old relic excuses why women and minorities 'just don't cut it ... don't make it'.

The point of the article is that corporate Canada is unprepared to do business with the real world of women and people of other cultures who are executives, people of power.

It's not about hiring token women and 'minorities'.

It's about being prepared to face them across the boardroom table, at conferences and business dinners.

Clearly the author is right: Corporate Canada is unprepared to succeed in the global business world.

Edited October 6, 2012 by jacee

[Michael Hardner]

The second issue is that women are too social. They talk too much...

I guess you're not looking to befriend too many MLW women.

In thirteen years in the government I've never attended a meeting that wasn't 90% wasted time, and at least two thirds were 100% wasted time.

That's a problem of corporate culture within the civil service. I've never heard it pinned to the fixtures that a manager has between their legs as you have done here.

[Wild Bill]

Again, think most of you are making the author's point, stuck in the same old quagmire, trotting out the same old relic excuses why women and minorities 'just don't cut it ... don't make it'.

The point of the article is that corporate Canada is unprepared to do business with the real world of women and people of other cultures who are executives, people of power.

It's not about hiring token women and 'minorities'.

It's about being prepared to face them across the boardroom table, at conferences and business dinners.

Clearly the author is right: Corporate Canada is unprepared to succeed in the global business world.

You are describing a picture from a storybook. How many women are these relics facing across the boardroom table?

Not that many companies are dealing globally. If they are dealing with China, Russia, India or most middle eastern countries it is doubtful if they confront any women at all!

In fact, if they bring any female managers of their own it would likely cause problems.

Countries that deal domestically might see more women in the boardroom. However, the mere fact that the article itself says there are far fewer than there should be suggests that "relics" will NOT lose any business!

Have you ever been in a boardroom situation yourself? I have many times but I suspect you have not. Otherwise, you would not be so unrealistic in your premises.

You seem to have difficulty relating to the way things are rather than the way you think they should be. I happen to agree with you about discrimination as to gender or anything else. However, to make the case that such attitudes DO cost business in Canada reveals an ignorance of how things truly work in business. Things are changing to be more fair but very slowly, particularly in Canada for reasons I have already posted.

[jacee]

You are describing a picture from a storybook. How many women are these relics facing across the boardroom table?

Not that many companies are dealing globally. If they are dealing with China, Russia, India or most middle eastern countries it is doubtful if they confront any women at all!

In fact, if they bring any female managers of their own it would likely cause problems.

Countries that deal domestically might see more women in the boardroom. However, the mere fact that the article itself says there are far fewer than there should be suggests that "relics" will NOT lose any business!

Have you ever been in a boardroom situation yourself? I have many times but I suspect you have not. Otherwise, you would not be so unrealistic in your premises.

You seem to have difficulty relating to the way things are rather than the way you think they should be. I happen to agree with you about discrimination as to gender or anything else. However, to make the case that such attitudes DO cost business in Canada reveals an ignorance of how things truly work in business. Things are changing to be more fair but very slowly, particularly in Canada for reasons I have already posted.

So your point is it doesn't matter if corporate Canada can't deal with women and people of other cultures ... other executives ... as equals: There aren't many of them and 'who cares'?

Does that about cover it ... from a relic's perspective?

Thanks for making my point.

[jacee]

As for social skills being moneymaking skills, could you explain why that is so? I truly don't see the connection bit if you feel you do it should not be hard to explain it in terms of money.

You can't be serious ...

[Wild Bill]

You can't be serious ...

I am perfectly serious! You are talking about an area I have direct personal experience, for nearly 30 years.

You make claims that differ from that experience. Before I could possibly believe you I would need a bit more than "you can't be serious".

I ask again, what does your view have to do with profit? Not just as you might imagine but in the real world?

Please understand, I am NOT stating I approve of the way things are! I am saying simply that it IS the way things are, at this point in time.

I suspect that if a business changed to meet your approval it might very well die, or at least suffer a severe slump in net profit.

It will take another generation or two, maybe more. While I am confident that as time goes by the mix of visible minority faces in the boardroom will improve I am not sure about the number of women. Up till now there simply hasn't been an equal number of women even trying to get into management! I am not completely sure why either, except for the fact that time out for child-bearing might be a factor. Whatever reasons, I do know that is the way it IS!

More so in business than perhaps anywhere else, you have to deal with the world as it is or you can expect to fail.

[gunrutz]

Again, think most of you are making the author's point, stuck in the same old quagmire, trotting out the same old relic excuses why women and minorities 'just don't cut it ... don't make it'.

The point of the article is that corporate Canada is unprepared to do business with the real world of women and people of other cultures who are executives, people of power.

It's not about hiring token women and 'minorities'.

It's about being prepared to face them across the boardroom table, at conferences and business dinners.

Clearly the author is right: Corporate Canada is unprepared to succeed in the global business world.

So your argument is that different must be better? All those old white guys you have disdain for built this country into a place that attracted all of those people from all of those other places. When women deserve to be in charge they can be and they do, i know this is impossible for you to understand, but men built the world we live in, for better or worse it makes sense that men generally perform better within the framework their predecessors built.

[gunrutz]

You can't be serious ...

Just because you believe it has to be so does not make it a fact, btw, just because you would like to replace us doesn't mean we are going to let you.

[gunrutz]

So your point is it doesn't matter if corporate Canada can't deal with women and people of other cultures ... other executives ... as equals: There aren't many of them and 'who cares'?

Does that about cover it ... from a relic's perspective?

Thanks for making my point.

How many women are running companies in other countries where all of these wonderful new Canadians come from, that apparently our companies need to hire? Lot's of women running companies in China and India? Im sure.

[jacee]

Whew!

So many relics in one place!

And if you represent 'corporate Canada', then I think the point is made ... Corporate Canada is not prepared to do business in this century.

Remember that you're defending a power-drunk idiot in the OP article who ... out of the blue he asked me if I would give him artificial respiration if he had an allergic reaction to his soup.

But please carry on ... extinction will be quicker with your 'support'.

Maybe the dodo birds will enjoy the company.

[Wild Bill]

Whew!

So many relics in one place!

And if you represent 'corporate Canada', then I think the point is made ... Corporate Canada is not prepared to do business in this century.

Remember that you're defending a power-drunk idiot in the OP article who ... out of the blue he asked me if I would give him artificial respiration if he had an allergic reaction to his soup.

But please carry on ... extinction will be quicker with your 'support'.

Maybe the dodo birds will enjoy the company.

You keep talking about "relics" having poor social skills and being politically correct. You have yet to say a damn thing about how this has anything to do with making money!

Believe it or not, some of the most socially inept human beings are very good at making money. Why do you think we have so many accountants and lawyers?

I am forced to conclude that either you have no clue about business or for reasons of your own you are keeping it all a big secret!

[jacee]

You keep talking about "relics" having poor social skills and being politically correct.

I think you mean 'incorrect'. Is that your euphemism for a complete and utter a$$hole?

You have yet to say a damn thing about how this has anything to do with making money!

Ya well half the population of the world doesn't want to do business with the idiot. Kinda shrinks his market, and professional associates.

Believe it or not, some of the most socially inept human beings are very good at making money. Why do you think we have so many accountants and lawyers?

Ya well I can tell you one lawyer the goof doesn't have ...

Catherine McKenna is executive director of Canadian Lawyers Abroad,

I am forced to conclude that either you have no clue about business or for reasons of your own you are keeping it all a big secret!

If you can't figure out how being an ignoramous to/about 70% of the population (women, minorities) could affect your bottom line ... you're beyond my help!

Edited October 8, 2012 by jacee

[Michael Hardner]

You keep talking about "relics" having poor social skills and being politically correct. You have yet to say a damn thing about how this has anything to do with making money!

I'll just jump in with these comments to help move the conversation along:

social skills include salesmanship, knowing how to manage people, and leadership skills

[Wild Bill]

I think you mean 'incorrect'. Is that your euphemism for a complete and utter a$$hole?

Ya well half the population of the world doesn't want to do business with the idiot. Kinda shrinks his market, and professional associates.

Ya well I can tell you one lawyer the goof doesn't have ...

Catherine McKenna is executive director of Canadian Lawyers Abroad,

If you can't figure out how being an ignoramous to/about 70% of the population (women, minorities) could affect your bottom line ... you're beyond my help!

I see. So in order for your premise to be correct, consumers would have to have intimate knowledge of any and all managers of any product or service they purchase. Are you living in a fantasy land?

Quick, tell me who made your toilet paper! What sort of person is the company CEO? How about your toaster? What about that can of beans in your cupboard? Tell us immediately who is the head dude and what sort of person he is?

It is so obvious I can't believe I have to mention it but Jaycee, NOBODY knows the answers to such questions! What's more, no doubt there are female managers that are jerks too!

Nobody knows because they have no need to know. It doesn't affect their personal lives or choices. So it doesn't affect the profit or loss of any business. Only in a unique or spectacular case, such as the head of some high profile company being outed as a pedophile, would the average consumer know or care. Even then, while they may not care for that particular manager, it is doubtful still that it would change their decision to buy from that company.

You are tilting at a windmill from a pinnacle of political correctness, to an empty hall! Your POV and that of the article from the OP are totally irrelevant to the profitability of any business.

You might come up with some examples of true relics running companies but it wouldn't have any impact at all on their sales.

I am becoming convinced that you do not live in the real world at all.