3 ms·

> I've asked this before: what's the goal, and how does putting women (in this case) on boards help towards that goal? It's all about overcoming inertia by pus

> I've asked this before: what's the goal, and how does putting women (in this case) on boards help towards that goal? It's all about overcoming inertia by pushing against it. There's a cultural bias in corporate boards to only or primarily hire men. Putting women on them can show that they are equally capable, and gives these women the opportunity to create the contacts needed so that other women in the future will also have access to them. All this is more difficult as long as the cultural tendency to discriminate in favor of men remains unchanged.

flipbrad 4y ago
I suspect these laws bear out their effects in considerably more numerous (and more subtle) ways than many critics realise. I suspect most will understand (i) the law immediately addresses a numerical imbalance, and (ii) also creates visible models/ examples to inspire future women to go for board seats. But also (iii) it builds the CVs of the current crop of women benefiting from the law to get onto boards, meaning they'll be less at a disadvantage next time they apply for another board (people are often on multiple boards at once), boosting 'organic'/'natural' (non-discriminatory) gender balance in the competition for seats; and (iv) when it comes to replacing the female board member, the company/organisation can more naturally contemplate another woman also doing a great job in that seat (whether or not they hire one into that seat would be a question of available candidates, but at least the headhunters and board would be able to - at least - imagine a woman in the role). Those are all quite significant levers.
tgv 4y ago
> Putting women on them can show that they are equally capable How is that a goal? Putting someone on a board isn't visible, at all. Almost nobody sees board members, and certainly nobody sees their achievements (which is needed to demonstrate capability). And visibility/perception of capability hasn't been needed in the past. Women have stormed institutions that were male bastions once. > so that other women in the future will also have access to them That's circular reasoning. Note that I'm not at all arguing against anyone in a board position. It's just that this seems to be a "feel-good" measure without any reason and effect.
- TuringTest 4y ago
  > Almost nobody sees board members, and certainly nobody sees their achievements (which is needed to demonstrate capability). And visibility/perception of capability hasn't been needed in the past. Women have stormed institutions that were male bastions once. Won't other board members see their achievements, and aren't board members responsible for choosing new members? Having women there should work to make their peers realize that being a woman is not by itself a handicap for the position (contrarily to the tradition of irrational beliefs that it does). > That's circular reasoning. No, it's compound interest. Getting the ball rolling is important so that the process will increase speed by building on the previous efforts, until reaching the point where the artificial pressure is no longer needed.
  - tgv 4y ago
    It's circular if the sole goal of putting women on corporate boards is to put more women on corporate boards. I doubt that's the goal, though.
    - TuringTest 4y ago
      Obviously. The goal is destroying the mindset that prevents having more women on corporate boards to begin with.
      - tgv 4y ago
        Ok. But I don't think that's going to be done by putting them there. Nothing suggests it would. Instead, it's a slow process of endless education. And I'm afraid the people at the very top are (on average) the more conservative, so it's a long, uphill battle. Giving a bunch of women a cushy job isn't going to achieve that goal. Chances of it backfiring are real, too: one foobar and the mindset is back again, rooted firmly in evidence this time. For comparison: look what a black president has done against racism in the USA. OTOH, I don't believe putting women on a board of directors is going to make companies perform worse. So many seats are taken by mediocre bootlickers. But I still think it's not going to help women in general.

flipbrad 4y ago

I suspect these laws bear out their effects in considerably more numerous (and more subtle) ways than many critics realise. I suspect most will understand (i) the law immediately addresses a numerical imbalance, and (ii) also creates visible models/ examples to inspire future women to go for board seats. But also (iii) it builds the CVs of the current crop of women benefiting from the law to get onto boards, meaning they'll be less at a disadvantage next time they apply for another board (people are often on multiple boards at once), boosting 'organic'/'natural' (non-discriminatory) gender balance in the competition for seats; and (iv) when it comes to replacing the female board member, the company/organisation can more naturally contemplate another woman also doing a great job in that seat (whether or not they hire one into that seat would be a question of available candidates, but at least the headhunters and board would be able to - at least - imagine a woman in the role). Those are all quite significant levers.

tgv 4y ago

> Putting women on them can show that they are equally capable How is that a goal? Putting someone on a board isn't visible, at all. Almost nobody sees board members, and certainly nobody sees their achievements (which is needed to demonstrate capability). And visibility/perception of capability hasn't been needed in the past. Women have stormed institutions that were male bastions once. > so that other women in the future will also have access to them That's circular reasoning. Note that I'm not at all arguing against anyone in a board position. It's just that this seems to be a "feel-good" measure without any reason and effect.

TuringTest 4y ago
> Almost nobody sees board members, and certainly nobody sees their achievements (which is needed to demonstrate capability). And visibility/perception of capability hasn't been needed in the past. Women have stormed institutions that were male bastions once. Won't other board members see their achievements, and aren't board members responsible for choosing new members? Having women there should work to make their peers realize that being a woman is not by itself a handicap for the position (contrarily to the tradition of irrational beliefs that it does). > That's circular reasoning. No, it's compound interest. Getting the ball rolling is important so that the process will increase speed by building on the previous efforts, until reaching the point where the artificial pressure is no longer needed.
- tgv 4y ago
  It's circular if the sole goal of putting women on corporate boards is to put more women on corporate boards. I doubt that's the goal, though.
  - TuringTest 4y ago
    Obviously. The goal is destroying the mindset that prevents having more women on corporate boards to begin with.
    - tgv 4y ago
      Ok. But I don't think that's going to be done by putting them there. Nothing suggests it would. Instead, it's a slow process of endless education. And I'm afraid the people at the very top are (on average) the more conservative, so it's a long, uphill battle. Giving a bunch of women a cushy job isn't going to achieve that goal. Chances of it backfiring are real, too: one foobar and the mindset is back again, rooted firmly in evidence this time. For comparison: look what a black president has done against racism in the USA. OTOH, I don't believe putting women on a board of directors is going to make companies perform worse. So many seats are taken by mediocre bootlickers. But I still think it's not going to help women in general.