> Posted by Danielle Piskadlo, Director, Investing in Inclusive Finance, CFI
Embed from Getty ImagesIt may have been the worst-timed joke ever.
At an Uber all-hands meeting for the company’s 12,000 staff to announce how the board planned to address the findings of an investigation that confirmed Uber’s toxic workplace culture and serious instances of sexual harassment, Arianna Huffington, the lone woman on the board, noted that a second woman would be added to the board as one part of the response. “There’s a lot of data that shows when there’s one woman on the board, it’s much more likely that there will be a second woman on the board,” said Huffington. That’s when investor David Bonderman, another member of Uber’s board, blurted, “Actually, what it shows is that it’s much more likely to be more talking.” He claimed to be trying to lighten the mood, but in the firestorm of criticism that followed his ill-considered remark, he quickly resigned from the board.
One might think that perhaps in this case gender justice was served and now we can move on. But this controversy never seems to end. Following Bonderman’s resignation, Imogen Rose-Smith in an Institutional Investor magazine article asked: “What’s the value of gender diversity, anyway? Does the representation of women on corporate boards really improve corporate performance? What is Arianna Huffington doing on the board of Uber? She was quite happy to sit on the board for the last few years without changing the culture.” (Of course one can question the justice of placing the entire onus on Huffington, as the sole woman on the board, to change the culture of Uber.)
At the Center, mainly through our Africa Board Fellowship program, we think a lot about what makes a board strong and how to improve board performance. It is a long held belief that diversity in general – including gender diversity – improves board performance. However, new research finds that the presence of women on boards does not lead to significant company outperformance, calling that theory a “cherished myth.” This new research indicates that boards with at least one woman, when compared with all-male boards, perform the same or only very slightly better.
The IFC addresses this issue of women on boards with a number of articles and research. One of my favorites is called “Women on Boards: A Conversation with (Male) Directors”, which is a series of anecdotal interviews from around the world that basically say a woman on the board makes the board more professional.
Even if performance is not enhanced, nominating women to boards promotes gender equity and advances a society where both genders share leadership and power.
This recent podcast from Returns on Investment “What’s the value of gender diversity, anyway?” also wrestles with this issue.
What do you think? Does it help to have women on the board? If so, how? If not, why?
Have you read?
What Can the Financial Inclusion World Learn from FIFA about Governance?
Facebook
Twitter
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 25, 2017 at 1:22 pm
John Gitau
Danielle, your are indeed prolific; never shy of tackling controversial topics.
The moment we allow ourselves to explore biological based dichotomies, we accept to hold poisoned chalices in our hands. The same comments by the duo at Uber board, in a different context or environment could have been taken in jest; gender based banters happen every day.
The Uber board, by the very nature of weighty matter at hand, was already charged. That was perhaps the context that amplified the otherwise benign comments by two colleagues in the board-not unless gender based hostility has been seething, waiting for an opportunity to vent.
In this event, there is clearly an overreaction and this hyper-sensitivity is peculiar. When quality ( unless in reproduction) is assessed around gender, we get it wrong, and when we focus on gender whatever it is, we see more of that gender whatever. Why not go for a more unifying theme such as mind? We hardly talk of woman mind versus man mind, at least not in corporate affairs where what counts is mental qualities.
The moment we pick a research area, the very identification is a bias, Most research findings are just confirmations of the biases. Thus, we usually focus on places where the phenomenon we are investigating is prevalent. Therefore, if we undertake to research on gender biases, we get more of gender biases confirming our biases. If we want to research on boards with gender diversity representing performance or suitability, that is what we get (IFC thematic bias focused success).
I have a question. Could it be that, in corporate boards, we confuse leadership with power? Perhaps Haffington was on a leadership frame of mind while making the comment but Bonderman took it as a challenge to power, the resource the male species feels exclusively entitled in a sickening delusion.
To IFC, aren’t you perpetuating biological dichotomies and inadvertently increasing hypersensitivity on that area? The more we investigate difference, the more of it we see, no? Aren’t unifying elements better? I would feel uncomfortable as a director in a board if someone asked me how I felt about a woman fellow director on the basis of gender. I would find myself saying “I have never looked at my colleagues in terms of their gender but do listen carefully to ideas they all contribute in the board” I like the unifying system in schools where we talk of pupils, students or in religion we have congregation, followers, parishioners etc. But men, women classification in serious affairs? A little bit outdated at this age and time, I think.
July 25, 2017 at 3:47 pm
John Gitau
By the way, the Africa Board Fellowship thematic pursuit ” what makes a board strong and how to improve board performance is brilliant. The gender diversity consideration is the skeleton in the feast. Drop it and lose nothing.