Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews has set gender quotas for appointments to government boards — meaning that board appointments in the state must be at least 50 per cent women. His announcement of the move follows the release earlier this month of Women on Boards’ 2015 Boardroom Diversity Index — the results of which were nothing short of staggering, as UN Women director Julie McKay writes for Mamamia today.
Imagine if rather than celebrating the companies that have appointed one woman to their board as a marker of progress towards gender equality, we were recognising companies for reaching gender parity.
Imagine if rather than celebrating when a company sets a 25 percent target for women in leadership, we were celebrating the companies who had committed to reaching gender parity within five years.
This month, Women on Boards released its 2015 Boardroom Diversity Index and to be honest, the results are staggering.
Despite slow progress, out of the ASX300, 81 companies still have no women on their boards. In the ASX100, there are five ‘stag’ companies.
It simply isn’t good enough. And for me, it is time that we had a conversation about how to drive change, when awareness raising and good intention simply isn’t resulting the changes necessary.
Why are women on boards important?
There is significant evidence that diverse boards are more effective and have stronger financial performance. Credit Suisse’s Gender Diversity and Corporate Performance report (2013) found that companies with more than one woman had delivered on average, higher returns, lower gearing and better average growth over the last six years.
Top Comments
Quotas will assist in breaking down the boy's club that currently exists in senior management and help to re-define the norms around high level appointments. I think they are necessary and I support them.
It never ceases to amaze me despite all the testing how other women, like this offer trot tired and vague canards about 'diversity;' and 'perspectives' and little about tangible benefits by unreasonable quotas. The sample size of this study was so small, and its was done by a body promoting gender diversity should have served as some clue to it's bias. The fact of the matter is due to the minuscule amount of women in top positions in business and industry, it is virtually impossible any data worthy to appear in a peer reviewed publication. One of the reasons have never been able to identify as feminist has been sheer denial of biological based differences between men and women. Highly intelligent men ( Men who surgeons, engineers, pilots, economists, scientists, musicians etc) outnumber women by a ratio of seven to one The higher you go on the iq scale, the starker the difference becomes. Men have a much broader variation of intelligence than women do. Anything that requires a high degree of spatial intelligence, women are not visible. Men are have much better to focus than women and block out unrelated information. For every 100 start ups in the silicon valley, only 1.7 out of every hundred are women. As an ideal is a good one, but it is so far removed from the reality of situation. This isn't sexism. It's reality. Elizabeth Farelly made an very astute point about this in the Sydney Morning Herald in talking about the differences in quality between male and female literature. It's not a matter of opinion, but a psychometric fact.
I object to quotas. Men will think women have only got their position because there is a quota. rather than that they were the best candidate for the job. We need to hire people who are the best qualified and most experienced, not fill quotas, if we are going to have the most effective and productive boards