Ridout is CEO of Australian Industry Group as well as a handful of government bodies; Proust is chair of Nestle Australia and a director of Perpetual, as well as a former senior executive of ANZ. Each of them now says she is disappointed with Australia's progress towards getting more women on boards and thinks that it needs to be forced.
Two weeks ago the Australian Institute of Company Directors issued a press release saying the opposite. The AICD was indulging in a little self-congratulation because it had been a year since it had called for more diversity and proposed a number of "concrete measures" which, it said, had contributed to "a year of real progress".
Said the AICD: "So far in 2010, 51 women have been appointed to ASX 200 boards, compared to only 10 in 2009. A total of 27% of appointees this year have been female compared with 5% in 2009. The proportion of female board members is now 10.3%, compared to just 8.3% at the beginning of this year."
It seems Ridout, Proust and many other women calling for quotas are just ingrates: far from satisfying them, the progress over the past year has sparked another push for quotas because it's too slow.
There are three companies in the Australian ASX top 200 with three or more women on their boards: Pacific Brands (5), QBE (3) and Westpac (3). Pacific Brands and Westpac are two of the seven companies with female CEOs, and QBE is one of the six companies with a female chair. There are another 34 with two women on their boards. The rest have none or one.
This debate has also started up again in the UK, where the percentage of directors who are women is now 13.6%, according to a recent study by the European Professional Women's Network. Across Europe it's 11.7%, up from 8.5% in 2008.
A couple of months ago, the former British Trade Minister and Standard Chartered bank chief, Lord Davies, completed a government review of the lack of women in boardrooms and launched a scathing attack on the lack of progress, saying that it was "a bit like the banking crisis, where the government had to step in because there was a problem and no other solution."
Back in Australia, I've been a watching, and participating in, a debate in a LinkedIn group called "Next Director" which more or less divides along gender lines: the women in favour of quotas, the men mostly (but not entirely) against, asserting that the more important issues is quality.
In my view raising the quality of boards and getting more women on them are two separate goals that are not mutually exclusive.
Many of those who oppose quotas argue that forcing the recruitment of women to boards would lower their quality, as if men are inherently better. In fact gender is completely irrelevant one way or another; if anything more women improves the "quality" of board, in my view.
There are two practical reasons, apart from basic fairness, for pushing the pace of change and forcing companies to recruit more women to their boards:
1. The number and quality of female graduates coming into companies and moving into management is now at or approaching 50%. The proportion at the top needs to catch up;
2. Women are different to men. They bring a valuable perspective to boards that can only be described as female (better at collaboration and risk assessment for a start) and one or two women is simply not enough to achieve the best result.
Forcing the pace and aiming at 40% women on boards over time would improve their quality, not weaken it. That's why the government needs to look at a quota.
This article first appeared on Business Spectator.
Related Items :
written by Dan8, December 06, 2010
written by grahamc, December 06, 2010
I think transparency in selecting candidates is preferable to a quota system. We live in a country which suffers from limited human resource in many areas and I am not reading anything here on the number of women available or willing to take on this challenge, one way or the other.
Lastly I don't see the ability to network or the size of a candidates network being gender biased, if its a requirement then its a requirement. If Lilian Franke applied for that position and charitable connections were the real requirement, she would win it in a walk.
written by ChrissieF, December 06, 2010
Yes, a quota will get more women on boards, but will it keep them there? A quota can't change the minds of people on boards who believe that women don't belong there, and it can't stop them undervaluing women.
Women who are undervalued or disregarded on a board will, naturally, get frustrated. They might stick it out, or they might quit, which would reinforce the misguided views of those people that women "can't handle it".
The core issue isn't numbers, it's culture, and there are many other ways to change that - mentoring of women in business gives existing board members the chance to really get to know some women and see for themselves what they can bring to the table.
A quota is a bandaid solution, it won't necessarily fix the causes.
I'm all for equal representation of the sexes on a company board. All companies should aim for it and, more importantly, Investors should request it. Having regulations imposing it would leave it open for abuse. Token women on boards just to fill a "quota" would not help the situation long term.