The " Gender " Issue !

Becoming a director of a public company brings with it prestige and influence, but it also imposes an obligation to  abide by the rules that government agencies impose.  A director who flaunts those rules can face court and be convicted of a felony which results in a prison sentence.  In many cases, the court will bar that person from serving as a company director for a given number of years.

In the distant past, it was unusual for a woman to serve on the board of any company in Australia.  It was usual for a small group of men known for their business integrity to sit on a number of company boards and there was male exclusivity in both the board of directors and the senior management of most companies.  This was a very " comfortable " arrangement that persisted for years.

In fact, in the earlier twentieth century it was unusual for many women to have any sort of permanent employment after marriage.  The genders observed the male as the " breadwinner " and the female as the " home maker " and most women were simply tasked with rearing the children.   That is not the situation today.

The economics of present day Australia require both genders to earn a pay packet and a huge child care industry exists to allow that to happen.  Women have not yet risen to pay equality with men but they are fast moving into management roles and many are starting their own companies.  The " glass ceiling " has been shattered and one of the reasons is the move women have made in getting elected and serving in Australia's parliaments.

Those parliaments are now looking to rebalance company boards with a greater number of women directors and this seems to be meeting resistance. Statistics show that eleven of the ASX 200 companies have no women on their boards and a further sixty-four have just one.  There is suspicion that many companies simply select a reasonably compliant woman for the job and that the appointment is merely for " keeping up appearances ".  The  " real " decisions are still made by the conclave of men.

" Push " is changing to " shove " and the forty thousand members of the Australian Institute of Company Directors ( AICD ) is coming under pressure to accept a government mandated  quota system in which all boards will comprise a thirty percent women content by the end of 2018.

There is no doubt that the aspect of how women see things can be beneficial to the way companies do business because women are fifty percent of the purchasing public.  A well balanced board is less likely to make marketing mistakes or stray into practices which break the law, but there is a danger when appointing women to boards becomes a legal requirement.  Gender then becomes the ruling factor rather than aptitude for the job.

It is rather frightening to think that if this law becomes reality, in the coming fifteen months an enormous number of companies across the entire business spectrum will need to select and appoint women directors to achieve that thirty percent gender balance.  How many compliant wives or mistresses will be elevate to board status, to make up the numbers and achieve legality ?   How many women will be thrust into positions in which they lack the business knowledge or the particular depth of technical know how of the business they now control ?

It would do immeasurable damage to the status of women to have a few glaring examples of newly appointed women directors resulting in marketing fiascos - and the critics will exploit that with glee. This time factor is too short to implement with legal thrust.  A five year time frame would allow suitable women to be groomed for the job, and for women with board pretensions to prepare for that responsibility.