By The Editor
The 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day has provided the background for a new debate on gender issues at work, specifically on the boards of Australian companies, with Governor-General Quentin Bryce suggesting quotas could be the only way to get more women in the boardroom.
Australia still has a lot of catching up to do, according to the latest ASX figures, with less than nine per cent of directors at our top 200 companies being female. Smaller businesses do a much better job of getting women on their boards, but the total figure of 25 per cent is still seen as unacceptably low.
Ms Bryce told The Age that quotas are a valid measure “in certain circumstances” of getting more women into company boardrooms.
“I think it’s very disappointing … to see now in 2011 there is such a poor representation (of women) in business, on boards, in those top decision-making positions,” Ms Bryce said.
Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey also expressed support for quotas “as a last resort” and backed a target of about 30 per cent.
The organisation Women on Boards has been advocating for greater female participation on boards for some time, arguing that gender diversity on boards leads to a more thorough decision-making process.
However, a strong case can be argued against the introduction of quotas to boost rates of female participation in our boardrooms.
For instance, many businesses want to be able to choose the best possible candidate from the widest possible field, whether they be male or female. The introduction of a quota would limit that choice and create unnecessary interference in the selection process.
There are also legitimate questions about whether it is the role of a government to dictate who should be on a company’s board in a society where we pride ourselves on freedom of choice, and where a company’s obligations is primarily to its shareholders, and not to governments.
Just a couple of weeks ago, renowned British columnist (and company board director) Lucy Kellaway wrote that the introduction of board quotas could end up being counter-productive to the cause of women on boards.
“All these companies need do to stop such stories (about having no women on their boards) is ship in a couple of vaguely plausible female non-execs – which is an awful lot easier than changing anything important – such as how they treat their women managers,” Kellaway wrote.
This raises an important point – women who have been appointed to boards due to quotas may be, unfortunately, viewed as less worthy contributors and not there on the basis of merit.
Kellaway also argues that diversity of opinion on boards shouldn’t necessarily result from a gender mix. “A male journalist and a male accountant probably take more sharply opposing positions on business issues than do, say, a male and a female accountant.”
In our view, quotas aren’t the way to ensure more women can take up board positions. Market forces, and not government intervention, will ensure that those companies who voluntarily select women on the basis of merit will thrive in our 21st century economy, and those that don’t will likely be left behind.
I agree with Luke quotas are nonsense and by-pass best candidate criteria.
Is equal prize money in Tennis Grand Slams for maximum 3 sets women rather than 5 sets for men’s matches equality?
We are not all equal, but we should all have an equal opportunity to achieve what we can on our merits.
We now appear to have women only venues opening after men only venues were challenged many years ago?
If the Governor General is so passionate about public policy issues, she’s welcome to run for parliament!
I agree, quota’s are offensive, counter productive and will reduce the quality of management in general. Merit should be the only reason for for any appointment.
The glass ceiling was smashed years ago and the number of female CEOs is increasing all the time, but women will only see it from their point of view. Each position that is filled would generally have more male candidates than female, so more men miss out.
Statistics quoted in this argument always neglect the total number of available candidates from each gender and therefore are irrelevant and misleading. They also neglect industries that have a gender bias.
Women are no more or less deserving of any position than men, but the correct balance is not half and can’t be mandated. I don’t know any men who would deny a position to anyone using gender as a measurement.