There is a lot of interesting talk about “board quotas” right now, and as I am an advocate for optimal board composition, board diversity is a topic I care deeply about. I want to add my voice to the conversation. Last week, I asked the women in my network (and beyond) whether they’ve ever served on a private or public board, why (or why not) and if they supported board quotas. This week, I’d like to hear from men.
If you’re a man who wishes to contribute to this valuable discourse, please answer the poll questions below:
[poll id=”8″]
[poll id=”9″]
[poll id=”10″]
[poll id=”11″]
[poll id=”12″]
[poll id=”13″]
I would be so grateful to have comments from all visitors in the comment section. Some things I’m especially interested in knowing:
– Men, if you have served on a board, what kind of board(s)? How many?
– Men, can you comment on your experiences on boards that did/did not include women?
– Men, have you witnessed gender discrimination in the selection process for new board members– choosing a male candidate over a better-qualified female candidate because of gender?
I’ll share the results of this poll and last week’s poll in an article soon!
Thank you. Names won’t be disclosed (unless you disclose in comment). Please invite your male colleagues to fill out the poll, and there’s still time for women to participate in the female-facing poll I published last week! The poll for women closes April 8th, and this poll for men will close April 10th.
Working to broaden diversity is an important goal. I have found diversity of background and breadth of experience/expertise/point-of-view, to be valuable contributions to strategic oversight. I have served with women as Board Chairs, as Committee Chairs and as Members. Their contributions vary as, of course, as they do with men or any other identifiable group. The quality of input is directly related to how relevant their experience and expertise is to the nature of the organization’s strategy and context, and, importantly, their level of commitment–how seriously they take their role and thus how prepared they are for informed dialogue.
Within the overall goal of increased diversity let’s keep in mind that competence, commitment and character are the trump cards. I find we can identify plenty of women and minority candidates these days without resorting to quotas. Quotas paint the governance process into an unnecessary corner, constraining the drive to build productive, Decision-Ready boards who can actually help the organization be better at delivering on its Mission.
Keep on working the preparation issue, Johanne. You have a powerful background, as a STEM-trained professional, to deliver on your aspiration to contribute to building increasingly effective Boards for all kinds of organizations. As the poet says, Keep on Keepin’ On!
Tom, thank you very much for responding to the poll and for sharing and clearly stating your views. I appreciate your support!
Johanne…I’m interested in seeing the results of the two polls once the results are in…take care…happy to lend my support
Tom, the results of the poll will be posted tomorrow, April 14 2015. Check my current blog posted this morning about “Diversity Quotas for Boards: What’s happening now”. I have a 3-part series subsequent to the poll: [a] current status of board quotas, [b] the views through the poll and [c] my views and insights.
Having a quota instantly (and often erroneously) devalues the female board member, much in the way affirmative action admissions have the same effect on minority students.
Jeet, I much appreciate that you took the time to respond to the poll and to share your views clearly stated. Thank you!
Johanne –
Comments as requested on your questions…
– Men, if you have served on a board, what kind of board(s)? How many?
NON-PROFIT, PRIMARILY CHURCH BOARDS
– Men, can you comment on your experiences on boards that did/did not include women?
LESS THAN AN IDEAL REPRESENTATION FOR CONSTITUENCIES OF WHICH I’VE BEEN A PART.
GENERALLY A LIMITED VIEW & INPUT WITHOUT SOME GENDER BALANCE.
– Men, have you witnessed gender discrimination in the selection process for new board members– choosing a male candidate over a better-qualified female candidate because of gender?
HAVE NOT SEE THIS, BUT HAVE BEEN IN SEVERAL SITUATIONS WHERE IT WAS VERY DESIRABLE TO NAME AT LEAST 2 WOMAN ON A BOARD SO NOT TO HAVE JUST ONE ISOLATED VOICE. WE HAVE WANTED TO SEE WOMEN REPRESENTED ON CHURCH BOARDS BUT ALWAYS IN BALANCE WITH FINDING THE BEST CANDIDATES.
I have served on many public and private boards, and frankly they have always pursued the bet people for the mission ….either man or women. Once a imbalance is noted regarding sex, race or other often that gap is looked at with the idea of filling it. Not for profit boards frequently hope to get strong fundraisers I the board and a cross section of the community.
Larry, thank you for promptly responding to the poll and for commenting.
I agree with Jeet Singh (at least in regard to a true meritocracy). That said, IMO, a single sex board be that all men or all women is generally handicapped if for no other reason than by virtue of the fact that our maker made us male and female for reasons other than procreation. A man is a marvelous creation. A woman is a marvelous creation. When men and women can interact as equals that combination of intellects, of perspectives, of insights truly elicits the greater potential to multiply our humanity and our intellectual power where 1+1 can be more than 2. An all male board has blind spots. An all female board will have blind spots. Mix up the sexes and the board will NEVER be perfect because both men and women are by nature flawed but a mixed-board will certainly have fewer blind spots than a single-sex board (IMO). To be perfectly cynical however, I am not so certain that even attempting to have a board with as few blind spots as possible is ever in the top 10 desirable characteristics of board composition either in government or industry. The older I become the more cynical I have become about the character exhibited by boards and other shared power structures in industry or government. While knowledge unarguably grows exponentially, wisdom it seems has not grown since the dawn of mankind.
Phil, Thank you for taking the time to do the poll and to share your views and expressing them eloquently. I appreciate it!
I agree with Jeet. The absence of women on boards is a serious problem, but I don’t believe compulsory quotas are the most constructive or effective way to address this problem. For behavioral changes to have enduring benefits, we need to address the root causes of why their aren’t more women serving on boards. Enforcing quotas merely addresses the most obvious of symptoms, but not the root causes.
Companies need board members that helps them , not to fullfill a quota which we can start to see in politics and now in Boards. This dévaluates Board membership as a whole not just female board members.
Philippe, merci de contribuer. Thank you for taking the time to do the poll and to clearly share your views. I appreciate it!
Quotas may help rebalance the dynamics of intransigeant Boards. Yet quotas must be attached solely as a formative metric to the active business strategy objectives of Boards fully engaged in top-down role modeling for a well designed corporate culture transformation.
Otherwise the Balanced Score Card for the enterprise (both internal and well qualified extensions) will lose dynamic sensitivity.
The dashboards for each Board committee as well as the executive leadership dashboard for the Board as a whole must not only reflect their fit to the purpose, vision, value and mission of the enterprise but also address the Board’s own business transformation strategy and the functional metrics (formative and summative) in which each leader who serves on the Board holds mission-critical expertise.
Otherwise active members of the Board will not easily make good sense of their own contributions to the cultural excellence positioning of the enterprise (either in part or on the whole.
Dear Jeff, I thank you for taking the time to respond to the poll and for your thoughtful and comprehensive comment. I appreciate that you took the time and your support!
Perhaps I’m being hopelessly optimistic about human nature here, but I generally take the view that one can’t tell others how to live. If women (or any other population groups) are deemed to be under-represented in a particular context, I’d be interested to know who is determining what the “correct” representation is, and what that “correct” representation really is.
30% seems to come up quite a lot. Whence, I’m not sure – seems a bit arbitrary to me. I do know that Gloria Steinem argued that women are more likely to speak freely if they are the majority in a group, and men are the minority. So much for 30%… does this imply that Boards should be majority female?
Diversity is a wonderful source of resilience, so designing diversity into a group – any group – makes that group more likely to be a sustainable system. Where leadership groups are concerned, I’d argue that the real enemy is groupthink. Diversity is your best hedge against that – the trick is to be clever in how you frame Diversity.
Oliver, thank you for taking the time to take the poll and for commenting. I much appreciate that you shared your views!