3 ms·
> Almost nobody sees board members, and certainly nobody sees their achievements (which is needed to demonstrate capability). And visibility/perception of capa
by 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 agoIt'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 agoObviously. The goal is destroying the mindset that prevents having more women on corporate boards to begin with.
- tgv 4y agoOk. 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.