It was announced this week that the last of the S&P 500 companies that had an all-male board named its first female director. Although this news might seem ridiculously mundane prompting an “it’s about time” reaction, to many of us who have been pushing for the advancement of women in the executive suite and boardrooms, it seems like someone, somewhere, should be ringing a bell.
A news article said that earlier in the year, the Washington Post singled out Copart for being the last company in the stock market index to be gender-homogenous. At the time of that call-out, Copart indicated that it was planning to add a “highly qualified, accomplished woman” this year. I’m so glad they made this clear because I’m sure the company’s shareholders would be tremendously upset if they felt that “any woman would do”.
The often-made comment that women who are being sought for board service need to be “highly qualified” is an indication of a bias (and I won’t even call it unconscious) that in order to increase diversity and to be more inclusive, a bar might need to be lowered to get that done.
There is nothing that can be further from the truth.
It also assumes that every man sitting around the table is there because he is “highly qualified and accomplished”.
I have witnessed a few exceptions to that assumption.
In over fifteen years of board service on public companies, I have worked with incredible men and women dedicated to organizational oversight and stewardship. Most boards are made up of individuals who bring unique skills and backgrounds that gives them a perspective that is valuable to the company's strategic challenges. On some boards, there is sometimes a person who shows up, rarely says a word, and whose voice is only heard when a motion needs to be made or seconded. I’m never quite sure why they are there, and hope that perhaps in between board meetings, they are somehow adding value and helpful counsel to the CEO and leadership in another capacity. Short of doing that, I think of these as “taking up space” directors who need to be removed through good governance and strong board leadership.
I can honestly say that I have never seen this trait with female directors. The women with whom I serve on boards have always “hit the ground running” making a substantial contribution from the first day they are at the table. In large part, this is due to the hurdles we had to overcome on the way to becoming “highly qualified and accomplished” during our executive careers. Regardless of the industry from which we hail, we had to learn to be heard, overcome significant biases, and achieve results in spite of many odds and very few role models. For this first generation of women who are joining corporate boards, there is no doubt that by the time they pass the tribulations of their careers, scrutiny of executive recruiters, and interviews of nominating and governance committees, they will pass the test of being “highly qualified and accomplished”.
Hurray for the Copart decision, and for the S&P milestone that was achieved this week. May we always govern in a way that causes us to never doubt the qualifications of any public company directors – be they male or female – as the world continues to become more complex and challenging for public corporations. And may we eliminate the term “highly qualified and accomplished” from our lexicon in only describing board candidates who look different from the norm.
Recent Comments