These organs of the corporate body all strive to put the best, most consistent face (and verbal spin) on what is actually a very messy and haphazard internal decision-making process.And the same way humans develop different personalities for different ecosystems (social, professional, political), companies also have different personalities/strategies for each of the games they play.
Both have a 'true'/internal nature (which dictates how they actually make decisions) as well as an external face.For people, the external face is the , and for companies it's their PR, marketing, and sales departments.These games/ecosystems aren't mutually exclusive, but they're distinct enough to be worth considering separately.A woman who's kind, gentle, and nurturing at home and at church (with her family and friends) can at the same time be ruthless at her office — without suffering any cognitive dissonance.To the extent that the ecosystems overlap, the different facets of personality will also overlap, but to the extent that the ecosystems are separate, the facets may diverge.
I explored some of these ideas in an earlier essay, The Ecology of Personal Politics.
Now watch what happens when we slot in different types of agents and ecosystems.
As a student, you might suppose that a teacher who's bossy in the classroom is also bossy at home and among his friends.
In other words, the same game theory and learning algorithms that drive personality development in individual humans also drive strategy in larger collectives.
Companies, for example, are complex decision-making processes.
To the extent that men and women differ in the types of personalities they develop, we can ask where those differences come from. Whether we like it or not, there are different niches for men and women in society, so it's natural that those niches will influence the strategies people develop in adapting to them.