A headline in the middle of an edition of the Singapore Business Times read "what proportion of boards should be women". It only caught my eye as I mistakenly read it as .... 'broads'...... but the article went on to suggest that a typical companies board should contain 11-30% females (as per a survey taken of 291 board members from various companies based in Singapore). It went further to suggest that government legislation should be considered to enforce this, although 'tokenism' was mentioned as a direct result of such an action.
In the modern world of supposed equality between the sexes it would be outright demeaning to any female to be in her position by law and not by talent and effort. In what other way would the males on the board see it?
I find it strange that a percentage figure should be given, as well as the use of the word 'tokenism'. Tokenism in essence relates to a minority group to which the female gender as a whole is certainly not unless to China we go. Tokenism as in a minority group on the board, I agree, but this is already noted as the basis for the article and the situation would certainly not be alleviated or reversed by legal enactment!
As many board members obtain their positions by the grace of family wealth, influential and political connection or hobnobbing, talent and skill are perhaps low on the agenda for most board members to attain their positions. Perhaps the female gender, in an attempt to obtain a gender-balanced board should hone up on their political hobnobbing skills to equal males in obtaining places at the table?
But regardless of the rights or wrongs of male dominance in the board room it was interesting to note that those surveyed to produce the 11-30% figure were all females. This seems unflattering to their own gender as what would be wrong with fifty percent? Perfect balance is only achieved by equality and there is nothing more equal than half of a whole, yet they opted for the lowly 11-30% only.
And it does not stop there! Those surveyed were in fact all board members of Singapore based companies so effectively, by giving a figure of 11-30% of females on a board, they were admitting that there should be a larger balance in favor of the male gender and that females could in fact not contribute that much at all?
No wonder only 6.8% of all board members in Singapore are female. They do themselves no favors.
But anyway, more to the point what about the broads? Should they all be women?
hi this is pooja..........
ReplyDeleteWith few exceptions, corporate boards of directors have historically been composed of white males. That is changing, albeit slowly. Based on the latest Catalyst figures, women constitute only 11% of Fortune 1000 company board seats, and 25% of Fortune 1000 companies still have no women on their boards. Admittedly, Fortune 1000 firms constitute only a fraction of companies in the United States; however, because there is limited knowledge about the board composition of non-publicly listed firms, we have to rely on the information we have. This information prompts us to ask why there are so few women on major company boards when apparently there is an interest in increasing the number?
Julie Daum, the North American board practice leader at Spencer Stuart, says, “When I began working with corporate boards ten years ago, there was a reluctance to add women to the board. Many CEOs only added women as a response to public pressure. Times have changed. Now, we see an unprecedented demand for women as companies look to bring on a second or third woman.” this is good information...
merchant marine jobs
Why though are they bringing on second or third women? Is it becuase they have talent and deserve the position or becuase society says they should?
ReplyDelete