Quotas for Women on Boards
February 7, 2010 by Susan McGrath
I’m writing an article about Women on Boards and would love to know what ABN members think about the idea of introducing quotas for female representation on corporate boards.
Would the introduction of quotas be:
A positive move?
Tokenism?
Unnecessary?
Essential?
Is there any other way we can redress the imbalance between male and female representation at the corporate Board level?
SHARE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW
Any input would be greatly appreciated – lateral thinking welcomed!
OR
Best regards
Susan
|
|
Susan Wareham McGrath, Susan Wareham Immigration ServicesSusan Wareham McGrath is a skilled and experienced Australian visa and immigration consultant; jobsearch strategist and career management consultant; professional writer, blogger and social commentator. She holds a degree in psychology, an advanced diploma in human resource management, a post graduate qualification in public policy development, a national training accreditation and registration as an Australian migration agent with the Migration Agents Registration Authority. Susan is a strong advocate for the personal and professional advancement of women, and after serving as an Advisory Board Member of the Australian Businesswomen’s Network since 2007 is now the ABN’s National Special Projects Manager.
|
I do not think having a quota is good for women as it is saying well your only here because I have to have you on my board. We would not know if we have been selected for our merits and what we can bring or to meet a quota.
We just to need to keep proving we are good board members and we bring a wealth of knowledge to the position.
They need to want us not to beg to want us too me that is what the quota will create
I think it is imperative that we start with quotas and then move to drop them.
I am old enough to remember when there were very few women as doctors, lawyers, and politicians.
Following affirmative action we now have or have had women as Premiers of the states and more and more women in key decision making areas.
If merit were the only measure that would be fabulous but because most board positions are held by men, and women are somewhat more than 50% of the populations there should by inference be more women on boards but there are not!
Ergo – affirmative action until merit IS the measure.
Agree with both opinions above. I believe that most women may not even think of being part of a board. Therefore quotas may not be the answer, but rather a raising of awareness within women’s communities that this is a possibility. Why not join a board if you feel you have something to contribute?
When I first arrived in this country several years ago, I struggled to find anyone who would hire me in a senior management capacity. I found this puzzling since I have two degrees, two professional designations and very solid work experience with recognized international brands. The MAIN reason I was given by organizations was that I “lacked Australian work experience”. I found this reason to be puzzling. We live in a world where there are few global trading boundaries. Every business is susceptible to the threat of losing customers to internet-based businesses (which in many cases sell the same products for less – i.e. travel, books, ink cartridges etc.) and we need to think outside of the square to compete and maintain market share.
My track record in business speaks for itself – plus I was named Online Retailer of the Year for Canada in 2001 by the Retail Sales Council of Canada. And yet, I struggled to get a job because I didn’t have enough Australian experience. Doesn’t everyone else in these organizations have Australian experience? Why must I have it in order to add value? Shouldn’t my international experience and internet retailing experience make a welcome, diverse addition to any team?
It seems to me that the biggest thing holding Australian businesses back right now is the “me too” syndrome. I do not consider this merely a sexist thing – that there are not enough women on boards and in senior management positions. What I mean is that there is an ingrained corporate culture that says the leaders and directors want to hire others that are “like them”. So if your management team or Board of Directors is made up largely of white, middle aged Anglo Saxon males with accounting or legal backgrounds, then that is who will tend to get the new board appointments. There is also a strong hint of nepotism – hiring mates and mates that they know vs. recruiting from the wider talent pool of all eligible and interested parties.
I would bet that if someone did a survey, they would find that most directors are of a certain age, background and educational/work pedigree. I doubt you would find much diversity at all in terms of age, sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, education and international work experience. In my estimation if there are 10 directors sitting around the table and 9-10 of them are coming at the issues from the exact same perspective/paradigm (because they have the same background and experience), then 9 of them should not be there. It’s that simple. If you want to create a culture of innovation and creativity, you cannot have 10 black hats (to use the famous coloured hat analogy of Edward de Bono) sitting around the boardroom table.
In my estimation it is in times of desperation or perspiration that real change happens. This global financial crisis may be exactly what the doctor ordered to initiate some real, progressive change around here. We cannot continue to do what we have always done. For many businesses, that is clearly not working any more. Did you know that more millionaires were made and more inventions were created in the Great Depression than in any other comparable time in history?
A change in global financial circumstances and a demand for innovation, improved customer service and sophistication in products may create more PULL to get women into senior leadership positions than any federal legislation designed to PUSH women in there. There can be no doubt that women are good communicators and skilful at developing long term relationships. In this next decade I believe we will see companies steer away from boards comprised largely of white, middle aged Anglo Saxon men and more towards a unique/disparate mix of qualified candidates from all walks of life who contribute synergistically through their diversity.
In the end, I believe there is no need to push and shove women (or any other minority group) onto boards. That sort of behaviour might be expected (but not tolerated) in the sandbox of your local kindergarten but, in my opinion, it has no place in the boardrooms of corporate Australia.
I agree with Rhondalynn’s comments.
Quotas are a nice stepping stone towards parity but a token 5-10% representation isn’t cause for transformative change. With the rapid growth of business in China and India i am equally surprised that there is not more Asian representation on our boards.
Where womens groups bring themselves undone is that they aren’t inclusive of the very people they need to transform. A board lobby group will only succeed in transforming the game when these male stakeholders they seek to either work with or usurp are inviting into the fold. A group formed on gender lines runs the risk of being perceived as isolationist.
Where women have rewritten the game of business is in the micro business and solo-preneur space. There is no tokenism there, it is green fields territory and women have transformed business forevermore in this space, and yet it hardly raises a ripple.