Sector News

Is your board less than 20% female? Some male directors say that's plenty

October 12, 2016
Diversity & Inclusion

While there’s growing belief that U.S. corporate boards are too male, the question remains: How many women is enough? According to a new survey, one in 10 directors still believe that the “optimal” number is somewhere between 20% and, well, zero.

Perhaps not surprisingly, 97% of respondents who said that women should hold just a sliver of board seats are male. But it’s not just gender that’s at play here, says Paula Loop, leader of PwC’s Governance Insights Center, which conducted the study. “An important thing to remember is that the average board member age is 63—there are some generational things here.”

PwC’s 2016 annual Corporate Directors study, released Tuesday, includes responses from 884 public company directors, 83% of whom are male and 17% of whom are female. The report looks at a range of board-related issues, including diversity and recruitment.

The survey isn’t all doom and gloom. On that same question (“What is the optimal percentage of female representation on public company boards?”), a full 43% of respondents chose 41% to 50%.

While only 41% of directors said gender diversity is very important, that’s a notable uptick from 2014, when 37% gave the same answer. Outside influences seem to be a key factor in that shift, with nearly half of directors telling PwC that they added a diverse board member over the past year in response to investor pressure. (The survey did not provide a definition of “diverse.”) “Even SEC chair Mary Jo White has been quite outspoken about disclosure [of boardroom diversity],” says Loop. “All that public pressure, investor pressure is resonating.”

The trends in how boards look for new members are also encouraging. The vast majority of candidates are still sourced from board member recommendations, but investor suggestions (18%) and public databases (11%) are slowly gaining ground. The use of sources other than current directors’ networks tends to help women, since male board members tend to know—and nominate—other men.

The survey contains one other clue about why boards have been so slow to diversify. Overall, only about a quarter of respondents said they believe there are a significant number of qualified diverse candidates. There is, however, a clear gender split on that issue, with 93% of women saying that they at least “somewhat” believe that there plenty of qualified non-male, non-white candidates out there. Until that gap is closed, it seems unlikely that the pace of progress will improve.

By Kristen Bellstrom

Source: Forbes

comments closed

Related News

September 25, 2022

What has (and hasn’t) changed about being a Chief Diversity Officer

Diversity & Inclusion

In the wake of George Floyd’s murder, corporate interest in DEI is higher than ever. But has this increased attention racial justice and inequity led to real, meaningful change? The authors conducted interviews with more than 40 CDOs before and after summer 2020 and identified four major shifts in how these leaders perceived their companies’ engagement with DEI.

September 17, 2022

3 workplace biases that derail mid-career women

Diversity & Inclusion

Mid-career women are often surprised by the levels of bias and discrimination they encounter in the workplace, especially if they’ve successfully avoided it earlier in their careers. After speaking to 100 senior women executives, the authors identified three distinct kinds of bias and discrimination faced by mid-career women. They describe each bias and conclude with recommendations for overcoming them.

September 11, 2022

Working women and the war for talent

Diversity & Inclusion

Bain research shows that men and women have consistent motivations when it comes to work, across factors like financial orientation and camaraderie. They also have similar attitudes on inclusion, with fewer than 30% feeling included in the workplace. Despite a lack of intrinsic differences, women and men continue to have different outcomes and experiences at work, due to meaningful imbalances in occupation choice, prioritization of flexibility, and the perpetuation of biases.