Q&A talks about diversity with Susan Stautberg, co-founder and co-chair of WomenCorporateDirectors.
Q: In what you call one of the most comprehensive global surveys of corporate board directors to date, men and women directors were found to be in striking alignment on economic outlook, political and regulatory concerns, and the business challenges facing their companies — but differ sharply when it comes to board diversity. What were your findings?
A: In our survey, both male and female directors named unemployment/the economy and federal budget deficits as their top two political concerns. Nearly the same percentage of women (42 percent) and men (45 percent) cited the “regulatory environment” as the greatest obstacle to achieving their companies’ strategic objectives. But diversity — and especially diversity quotas — elicited sharply divided opinions among men and women. Over half of women directors believe that quotas are an effective tool for increasing diversity in the boardroom, but only 25 percent of men agree. Almost four in 10 women (39 percent) personally support the use of quotas, versus less than one in five men (18 percent).
Q: What do you think was behind those findings? Why are men not as concerned about having more women directors?
A: Research shows that boards are struggling to not only seat more diverse members, but also to make this a priority. Less than half of the respondents globally (47 percent of U.S. and 35 percent of non-U.S.) could say their boards had adopted measures to successfully advance diversity and these findings were almost identical to the year before. It has only been in the last several years that a significant body of research has come out showing the strong link between corporate performance and board diversity. And boards are like huge ships — it takes a while to turn, especially so given the choppy waters of the past few years of economic turmoil.
Q: There is some disagreement as to why women are not represented on boards in the numbers they should be. What are the differences of opinion?
A: This topic reveals a clear perception gap. Women place the responsibility for driving diversity squarely on board leadership, whereas men see it as both a pipeline and leadership issue. Forty-five percent of men vs. 18 percent of women surveyed believed that the “lack of women in executive ranks” is the primary reason that the percentage of women on boards isn’t increasing, while women believe the reason to be that “traditional networks tend to be male-oriented.”
Q: Obviously this survey was conducted, in part, by a women’s business group. But did the survey look beyond gender issues and address minority representation on boards?
A: While the survey compared men/women and U.S./global, we were careful to view diversity in a much broader context beyond gender and race. Diversity is a business imperative — it is multigenerational, multinational, multicultural, multiregional and multigender. We need a real diversity of ideas if we are to solve complex challenges in an interdependent and unpredictable world. Boards must seek qualified people with different ways of understanding the organization, with different paradigms and different points of view to process the same information and raise points that others might not have seen.
Q: Your survey also raised the issue of quotas. Any sense that quotas are actually a good idea for corporate boards and why?
A: Greater regulation in general — whether involving governance decisions, financial disclosures or diversity quotas — are just not that popular with boards. Directors are well aware of the challenges they face in steering their companies into recovery and don’t want their hands forced — not every problem warrants a regulatory answer, nor is regulation seen as the solution. Social and historical realities may call for governments in certain parts of the world to take a more active role in pushing private enterprise to adopt a more equitable gender balance, as was the case with new mandates introduced last year in Malaysia. But elsewhere, a nuanced and pragmatic approach makes more sense. When it comes to board composition, a toolbox can work better than a regulatory hammer. The individualized needs of different companies demand a complex and more nuanced set of tools to improve diverse representation in the boardroom — including the advocacy of many different layers of stakeholders.
Q: The survey also reports a consensus among men and women directors globally regarding the top 2012 political issues. What are their top political issues globally?
A: Gender differences largely disappeared when directors were asked about their top political concerns for 2012. After the top two issues — the economy and the budget deficit — men and women differed slightly, with “healthcare costs” coming in as the #3 concern for women and “energy costs” as #3 for men. Energy costs were a higher concern outside the U.S., with 34 percent of non-U.S. directors citing it as a top concern, while only 19 percent of U.S. directors did.
