Comments on: Women Lack Numbers and Influence on Corporate Boards http://business-ethics.com/2010/03/19/0932-women-lack-numbers-and-influence-on-corporate-boards/ The Magazine of Corporate Responsibility Sat, 17 Dec 2011 21:28:39 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Dana Weckesser http://business-ethics.com/2010/03/19/0932-women-lack-numbers-and-influence-on-corporate-boards/comment-page-1/#comment-1075 Dana Weckesser Fri, 23 Apr 2010 14:10:14 +0000 http://business-ethics.com/?p=2172#comment-1075 Network 2000, Inc. is a nonprofit organization based in the greater Baltimore region that promotes the advancement of women in professional, executive, and board positions. Two key goals of Network 2000 are to: <blockquote></blockquote>* heighten the awareness and critical importance of women on corporate boards <blockquote></blockquote>* establish itself as a source for corporations seeking board-ready corporate directors. Research shows that "companies with the highest representation of women on their top management teams experienced better financial performance than companies with the lowest women’s representation. This finding holds for both financial measures analyzed: Return on Equity (ROE), which is 35 percent higher, and Total Return to Shareholders (TRS), which is 34 percent higher." (Catalyst) Network 2000 has been measuring the representation of women in the boardrooms of public companies based in Maryland for the last five years. Our <em>2009 Census of Women Board Directors in Maryland</em> shows some progress. We are pleased that between 2007 and 2008 the percentage of women holding board seats of the 92 companies headquartered in Maryland has increased from 8.8% to 9.2% compared to 15.2% nationally. Among Fortune 500 companies, Maryland exceeds the national average for the percentage of women directors since 100% have at least one woman director compared to 90% nationally (2009 Catalyst Census). Nevertheless there is room for improvement. Only seven companies had 20% or more women directors <em>and</em> women executives. Thirty of the 92 public companies headquartered in Maryland had NO women on their boards and NO women executives. We encourage you to read our <a href="http://www.network2000md.org/women_on_boards/progress_report" rel="nofollow">report</a>, reflect on the progress made and the progress yet to be made, and then seek qualified women for open board seats and executive suite positions. Network 2000, Inc. is a nonprofit organization based in the greater Baltimore region that promotes the advancement of women in professional, executive, and board positions. Two key goals of Network 2000 are to:

* heighten the awareness and critical importance of women on corporate boards

* establish itself as a source for corporations seeking board-ready corporate directors.

Research shows that "companies with the highest representation of women on their top management teams experienced better financial performance than companies with the lowest women’s representation. This finding holds for both financial measures analyzed: Return on Equity (ROE), which is 35 percent higher, and Total Return to Shareholders (TRS), which is 34 percent higher." (Catalyst)

Network 2000 has been measuring the representation of women in the boardrooms of public companies based in Maryland for the last five years. Our 2009 Census of Women Board Directors in Maryland shows some progress. We are pleased that between 2007 and 2008 the percentage of women holding board seats of the 92 companies headquartered in Maryland has increased from 8.8% to 9.2% compared to 15.2% nationally. Among Fortune 500 companies, Maryland exceeds the national average for the percentage of women directors since 100% have at least one woman director compared to 90% nationally (2009 Catalyst Census).

Nevertheless there is room for improvement. Only seven companies had 20% or more women directors and women executives. Thirty of the 92 public companies headquartered in Maryland had NO women on their boards and NO women executives.

We encourage you to read our report, reflect on the progress made and the progress yet to be made, and then seek qualified women for open board seats and executive suite positions.

]]> By: Jen http://business-ethics.com/2010/03/19/0932-women-lack-numbers-and-influence-on-corporate-boards/comment-page-1/#comment-894 Jen Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:07:07 +0000 http://business-ethics.com/?p=2172#comment-894 Our position at sphinxx is that it's time for quotas. We surveyed 200 women in leadership roles last year and found that 74% of respondents support the use of quotas or targets or both to improve female representation on boards and in leadership roles, and 47% specifically supported the adoption of quotas. Women have been politely taking on board the feedback about the experience, expertise and networking they need to do to get into the top jobs for decades now... to little effect. Macchiavelli said all those years ago that those with the power will never voluntarily give it up. So why would the men who dominate business step aside for women? We know that organizations with more women in leadership roles produce financial results up to 35% stronger - so why don't the shareholders insist on diversity? Because the Institutional Investors are dominated by men at the top who are threatened by the idea of diminishing their power. Organisations have also spent millions on womens programs in the past... again with little result. Targets won't do it; we need quotas like Norway to force the shift (in Norway the quotas were only enforced by Government after boards failed to meet and work towards targets). And like Norway, we'll find that there are in fact plenty of women qualified for board and executive positions. And we'll also see that getting more women into leadership roles encourages more women to get there too. Our position at sphinxx is that it's time for quotas. We surveyed 200 women in leadership roles last year and found that 74% of respondents support the use of quotas or targets or both to improve female representation on boards and in leadership roles, and 47% specifically supported the adoption of quotas.

Women have been politely taking on board the feedback about the experience, expertise and networking they need to do to get into the top jobs for decades now... to little effect. Macchiavelli said all those years ago that those with the power will never voluntarily give it up. So why would the men who dominate business step aside for women? We know that organizations with more women in leadership roles produce financial results up to 35% stronger - so why don't the shareholders insist on diversity? Because the Institutional Investors are dominated by men at the top who are threatened by the idea of diminishing their power. Organisations have also spent millions on womens programs in the past... again with little result. Targets won't do it; we need quotas like Norway to force the shift (in Norway the quotas were only enforced by Government after boards failed to meet and work towards targets). And like Norway, we'll find that there are in fact plenty of women qualified for board and executive positions. And we'll also see that getting more women into leadership roles encourages more women to get there too.

]]>