Gender equality advocates are familiar with the concept of making the “business case” for women. Right now, I don’t see how shareholders are getting bang for their buck.
I support organisations realising the economic opportunity that comes with engaging in gender diversity. But instead of just promoting the ‘business case’ for women, we should also consider just what the men bring to the table. After all, men have dominated so many institutions for so long now, there must be some reason for this?
Men, particularly those who are white and married, have been contributing to the management of society and the economy for centuries now. With the same resources, could women have done a better job?
Let’s have a think about this: When we look at men’s contributions to the economy and society there are a few themes that come through — and they’re not always good. For all the great organisations that have been built through excellent leadership, there are plenty that have also been destroyed through irrationality, devastation and inefficiency.
While women can often help increase the bottom-line, are more innovative and productive in what they do, we cannot always be so generous in saying the same thing about men. We’ve been given to many examples that say otherwise.
The Hay Group recently released some data that shows of the 300 largest companies in the US, women-led companies had a shareholder return of 36% rather than 34% for the full survey.
Of the great companies that have fallen to disaster, think Enron, Ansett, Lehman brothers, HIH insurance and a bevy of others, they are overwhelmingly led by men.
The few women in leadership positions, however, have been comparatively productive it turning companies around during testing times. Mary Barra, Irene Rosenfeld and Marissa Mayer are doing this at the moment. They are all being acclaimed for doing this very well, surpassing expectations of their work.
Women are often brought into executive and leadership roles during times of crisis or downfall. It is not an adequate use of their talents because as we can see with women like Ann Sherry and Gail Kelly, along with Ursula Burns of Xerox and Helena Morrissey of Newton Investment Management, women are just as good, if not better at managing through the good-times.
Men are great at maintaining the status quo in business. They are usually conservative, but then may fail to recognise opportunities. Women, meanwhile, are often more agile and keen to progress operations and transform operations when necessary. Leadership traits of women have been proven to be collaborative and engaging.
And when it comes to promotion, the ‘boys club’ may mean women have to rely on their skills, experience and education — it’s their merit that counts. Top many men who’re not suited to leadership end up in positions of power based on their networks alone, hardly the right qualifications to make a significant business investment in.
Companies ought to be preparing more women for leadership. Not only could it be a safer bet, but women often offer a better return on investment than men. There’s a very strong business case for women.