We can’t just appoint a woman! We appoint based on merit.
We’ve already appointed a woman. We don’t need another one just yet.
We’re performing well as a board. We don’t want to shake things up now by bringing a female in.
What about the blokes? They’re missing out with all this gender talk stuff.
Heard any of these excuses before?
They’re common ones. And in 2016 they continue to be spoken from the mouths of board chairs and non-executive directors (NEDs) who you would think should by now know better.
It’s these excuses that are a good reason why ASX-listed boards continue to be overwhelmingly dominated by men, including 20 on the ASX 200 that still do not have a single female director.
In its Barriers to Progression report, the Australian chapter of the 30% Club has outlined a number of reasons Chairs and NEDs use for explaining why they can’t, or won’t, appoint women to their boards.
The list is based on conversations those associated with the 30% Club have had with listed NEDs and company chairs at different times. While some women may have made the below excuses, they’re excuses that are overwhelmingly given by men.
The 30% Club says the prevalence of such excuses show a general lack of understanding on the business benefits of board gender diversity – something that has been proven in numerous reports and studies both locally and abroad. So with each of the excuses they’ve come across, they have also offered the research-backed argument to dismiss it.
Below’s our overview of the key excuses that come up. Heard any of your own worth sharing? Get in contact.
1. The merit factor
This is the all too common excuse that those appointing board directors have for not finding any female directors, and dismissing all-female searches and quota-like systems. Appointments should be based on merit, they say. It just so happens that the system of ‘meritocracy’ at work has failed to deliver an equal number of women. From there, some claim that all the great, experienced female directors have no more capacity to take on additional board roles, and that there just aren’t enough women with finance expertise. Many say they simply can’t find board directors with the skills and qualifications required.
The report offer’s a handy reminder on the ‘merit’ factor, noting that 45,000 more women completed tertiary qualifications in 2014 than men, and the fact that more than 50% of those working in finance are actually female, according to WGEA data.
Meanwhile, it notes that any system of “merit” that only considers women with ASX 200 board experience in its executive searches is flawed, and that chairs and recruiters must conduct more expansive searches and deconstruct what is really required in terms of skills and capabilities, rather than simply taking the traditional path.
2. The leadership/style factor
This is the flawed belief that bringing in a new style of talent or leadership could disrupt the “collegiality” of a board. Some might claim their board dynamics will be adversely impacted, others say they already have ‘one woman’ and that’s enough, while others again say women are too risk adverse and not reliable enough to succeed as long-term board members.
Others again may say their customers and clients are largely male, so who needs a woman? (Strangely this excuse doesn’t seem to apply in the reverse, particularly on retail boards).
From there, there can be further excuses – such as the idea women won’t have the right style to benefit the management structure, or that women won’t want to visit the difficult and challenging locations some boards are required to travel to.
Then there’s the flexibility excuse: the board meetings happen at odd hours, which won’t suit women who need to look after their families.
3. The ‘Not worth it’ factor
Now this is the belief that the business case for diversity simply doesn’t exist. Why go to all this trouble of getting women on the board if it’ll have no direct impact on the bottom line?
Why bother when the investors have shown little to zero interest in making board diversity a priority?
When your job’s to maximize shareholder returns – and you already believe you’re succeeding at that – why shake things up by putting women on the board? Or why risk the outcomes of the serious business challenges a board’s facing by prioritizing gender diversity?
These excuses ignore data that shows up to 80% of consumer purchasing are driven or influenced by women, as well as the numerous, major international studies completed that find better diversity leads to better decision-making and ultimately better company performance. In Australia, the Reibey Institute recently found that ASX 500 companies with female board members perform significantly better than those without women, while Catalyst, Credit Suisse and McKinsey & Company have also all released major studies linking board performance to gender diversity.
4. The ‘time will fix it’ factor
This is the pipeline excuse. The idea that time will be enough for women to gain the board roles organically. It’s the belief that things can’t be forced and should be allowed to naturally progress.
For some, it’s also the belief that all this talk about ‘gender diversity’ is unfair to the blokes, who must surely be missing opportunities they deserve. The stats immediately refute this: if men were really missing out, women would currently hold a lot more than just 23% of ASX 200 board positions.
Time alone will not solve this problem. The pipeline of experienced, qualified women has been big enough for decades, with women graduating from university in at least equal numbers to men since the 1980s.