我們?cè)凇敦?cái)富》的一項(xiàng)工作就是管理500強(qiáng)排行榜，而對(duì)于《財(cái)富》Broadsheet團(tuán)隊(duì)，他們的工作又包括了特別關(guān)注《財(cái)富》500強(qiáng)上榜企業(yè)的女性CEO。

根據(jù)今年5月公布的《財(cái)富》500強(qiáng)企業(yè)榜單，目前執(zhí)掌這些大公司的女性有26人。對(duì)我們來(lái)說，看著這個(gè)數(shù)字每年小幅攀升或是下降真是一件讓人緊張的事。

所以，你可以想象，當(dāng)看到一項(xiàng)新近研究被冠以學(xué)術(shù)界少有的聳動(dòng)標(biāo)題“你被炒魷魚了！解雇CEO存在性別差異”時(shí)，無(wú)疑引發(fā)了我的興趣。研究者提出的問題也是我多年來(lái)一直問自己的問題。從500強(qiáng)企業(yè)的女性CEO名單中刪除一些名字時(shí)，我就在想：女性是不是比男性更有可能失去CEO的職位？

在可能解答這個(gè)問題以前，研究團(tuán)隊(duì)成員——密西西比大學(xué)副教授威紹·格普塔、阿拉巴馬大學(xué)副教授桑德拉·莫塔爾、孟菲斯大學(xué)助理教授薩巴提努·塞爾拜里、克萊姆森大學(xué)教授孫民行（音譯）和密蘇里大學(xué)教授丹尼爾·特班必須先解決一個(gè)我們所熟知的問題，即很少有CEO承認(rèn)自己被公司解雇，也很少有公司承認(rèn)主動(dòng)解雇CEO。研究人員選擇了依據(jù)公開報(bào)道來(lái)判斷哪些CEO是被解雇的。一些報(bào)道會(huì)披露某位CEO被解雇或被迫離開，或者因?yàn)檎咦兓蚴菈毫Χ栽鸽x職。研究報(bào)告的作者寫道：“然后我們?cè)龠M(jìn)一步分析，如果離職的CEO年齡在60歲以下，而且媒體并沒有報(bào)道其離職是因?yàn)槿ナ?、健康狀況不佳，或是另謀高就，或者雖然指出其將會(huì)離職，但未提前至少六個(gè)月宣布，那么這些CEO的離職就將歸入被解雇之列?！?/p>

基于以上判斷，研究人員最終得出結(jié)論：女性CEO的確更有可能被解雇。實(shí)際上，她們被解雇的可能性比男CEO高45%。更有趣的是，假如經(jīng)營(yíng)的公司業(yè)績(jī)不佳，女性CEO被解雇的幾率卻和男性相差無(wú)幾。只有在公司業(yè)績(jī)良好的時(shí)，二者的差異才會(huì)凸顯出來(lái)。

那么，到底是什么原因造成這種情形？研究者無(wú)法確定，不過他們給出了一些耐人尋味的假設(shè)成因。他們認(rèn)為，當(dāng)一家公司境況不佳時(shí)，決定解雇CEO的理由往往顯而易見，而一旦公司經(jīng)營(yíng)良好，CEO的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)能力如何就很難明確判斷，董事會(huì)沒有清晰的評(píng)價(jià)可循。在這種情況下，董事們更有可能依從那些刻板的兩性能力評(píng)價(jià)做出判斷，認(rèn)定女性CEO不具備讓公司持續(xù)取得佳績(jī)的“領(lǐng)導(dǎo)素質(zhì)”。

我承認(rèn)，這并不是一個(gè)好消息。但理解這類形勢(shì)變化非常重要。畢竟，在我們的職業(yè)生涯中，上司會(huì)對(duì)我們做出很多理由“含糊”的決定。像這樣的研究讓我們有了心理準(zhǔn)備，或許能影響那些決策時(shí)刻。最重要的是，領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者對(duì)女性的偏見有可能斷送企業(yè)未來(lái)、毀掉員工的職業(yè)生涯，而這樣的研究能引起他們對(duì)此的關(guān)注。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

譯者：Pessy

審校：夏林

One of our jobs here at Fortune is to act as the keepers of the Fortune 500—and for the Broadsheet team, that includes a special focus on the all-too-exclusive club of female Fortune 500 CEOs.

The list of women running these massive companies currently stands at 26, and it’s a bit of a nail-biting experience to watch as it climbs by a few digits each year—or even falls, as it did when we released the 2018 Fortune 500 list in May (it was then 24, down from 32 a year earlier).

So, you can imagine that my interest was piqued by a new research study with the atypically-kicky-for-academia title, “You’re Fired! Gender Disparities in CEO Dismissal.” The question posed by the study’s authors is one I’ve asked myself over the years as we’ve scratched names off our roster of female chiefs: Are women more likely to be ousted from CEO jobs than their male counterparts?

Before the research team—Vishal Gupta of the University of Mississippi, Sandra Mortal of the University of Alabama, Sabatino Silveri of the University of Memphis, Minxing Sun of Clemson University, and Daniel Turban of the University of Missouri—could tackle that question, though, they had to solve a problem that those of us who cover this stuff are all too familiar with—very few CEOs admit to being “fired” and very few companies admit to firing them. To determine which executives were dismissed, the researchers relied on press reports that he or she had been fired or forced out, or resigned due to policy differences or pressure. “Further,” write the authors, “exits for CEOs below the age of 60 are classified as dismissal if either the press does not report the reason as death, poor health, acceptance of another position, or the press notes that the CEO is retiring, but does not announce the retirement at least six months in advance.”

With all that established, the researchers finally reached a conclusion: Yes, female CEOs are more likely to get the boot. In fact, they’re 45% more likely to be dismissed than their male counterparts. Interestingly, though, there’s not much of a difference (“statistically insignificant”) when the company is doing poorly. The gap only kicks in when you look at companies that are performing well.

So, what’s going on? The researchers can’t say for certain, but their hypothesis resonates. They suggest that when a company is performing badly, the decision to fire the CEO is often clear cut. But when it’s doing well, there is “considerable ambiguity about the CEO’s leadership of the firm and no clear script for the board to follow.” In that situation, board members are more likely to fall back on the gender stereotypes and decide that the female CEO doesn’t have the “l(fā)eadership qualities” needed to continue the company’s winning run.

Okay, I admit—this isn’t the cheeriest news to launch you into your weekend. But it is vitally important to understand these types of dynamics. After all, how many “ambiguous” decisions do our bosses make about us throughout the course of our careers? Research like this sets us up to anticipate and perhaps influence those moments and—most importantly, brings them to the attention of those whose bias has the power to wreck companies and careers.