Two-thirds of ASX 200 boards say they “always or sometimes” gravitate towards candidates who are known to board members when selecting new directors, hindering efforts to achieve gender diversity on boards, according to a survey by the 30% Club.
Directors who responded to the survey said it was easier to work with someone who was known to board members and who had established reputation in the market.
Susan Oliver, 30% Club Steering Committee member, said given the current small percentage of directors who are female, this leads to a “catch 22” situation for women.
“…Fewer females are known to directors, and this reduces the likelihood that females will be selected,” said Oliver.
Only 6.5 per of respondents sought outside advice on succession planning, and only 10.2 per cent of respondents cited the need for enhanced board diversity.
“The challenge in achieving gender equity is not one of supply but continues to be one of demand, with insufficient numbers of boards perceiving gender diversity as a strategy imperative,” said Oliver. “When chairs place too high a value on ‘collegiality and teamwork’, it can be sued as a code for ‘being like us’ and limit the opportunity for injecting innovative and diverse thinking.”
The Club posited that good succession should be based on skills, diversity and planning for the future rather than replacing like with like.
Other practices that hindered diversity efforts were the adherence to a de-facto fixed term for directors of nine or 10 years, as well as highly specific experience briefs.
By Anastasia Santoreneos
Source: Money Management
An estimated one in seven people in the UK are neurodivergent, yet many struggle to get into jobs or progress in employment. For example, just three in ten of autistic people are in employment, with many of these jobs unstable or below their skill level. In the engineering sector, the call to recognise and harness the unique capabilities of neurodivergent talent has never been more pressing.
A desire from younger workers to earn high salaries early in their careers is a desire based on needs and not wants, data suggests. When asked about the main reasons for compensation increases, 31% said to pay for all their bills and expenses and 25% said to save money for the future.
At a recent training I was facilitating, I invited people to ask me anything anonymously using polling technology. While the questions always give me great insight into where people are struggling with issues of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), this question seemed more universal: “What do I do if my manager is not inclusive?”
