Forcing Women Into the Executive Suite

• Report this Comment On December 08, 2009, at 1:29 PM, lemoneater wrote:

  Are boardrooms currently closed to women? (Some businesses may not be women friendly, but is legislation the answer? I don't think so.) Legislating a "woman quota" will probably succeed in making some board members less equal than others. I would never like to be one of the token women on a board. Ideally, no matter the gender, board members should be qualified professionals with unique areas of expertise who care about the company's success.

• Report this Comment On December 08, 2009, at 2:04 PM, yzfinance wrote:

  I'll comment, if only for the $0.10 that you promise to pay to a school (I do hope you will keep your word).

  What I am about to say might appear misogynistic, but I hope you will look beyond the "politically correct" to evaluate the logic of the argument instead. I argue that there is no need to have equal number of men and women on directors' boards, nor is it necessary to give preferential treatment to women (or men, or minorities, or anyone else).

  I, as a shareholder, want my company to be managed by the best people possible. It does not matter if they are men or women, white, black, yellow, brown, or purple with green dots, and I don't care who/what they bed. Their management abilities are what I'm looking for. There exists as many capable women as there exists men, I am sure, but in this case, why should there be preferential treatment? Members of both sexes have to prove themselves, have to climb up the ranks to reach the top. I'm all for fair treatment; if the law is to make sure the road is as arduous for everyone, fine, but it should not be made easier for one particular group.

  The biggest flaw in the argument in favor of a 50-50 distribution of men and women in higher management positions lies in the composition of the pool of applicants. Why don't we ever have numbers on the percentage of women applicants? If there is a 50-50 distribution there, then the outcome should also keep the proportions, but if not, why complain? Being a CEO requires enormous sacrifices, and I'd say it takes a certain type of person to want to be one. The army has more men than women, should we enforce a fair distribution there too? Without statistics on the applicants pool, enforcing an equal number of man and woman executives seems illogical.

  I hope we can agree on this: do not discriminate, but make choices based on skills. Everyone that wants to become a Director or an Executive should have the same chances, regardless of sex, skin colour, sexual orientation, religion, etc., but that's as far as the law should go.

• Report this Comment On December 08, 2009, at 3:31 PM, TMFKris wrote:

  Here's the link to our "Foolanthropy" page with more details about the donation, if you would like to take a look.

  http://www.fool.com/foolanthropy/index.aspx

• Report this Comment On December 08, 2009, at 3:38 PM, pondee619 wrote:

  I'll kick in your ten cents worth. Any time anyone is hired or promoted based on anything other than that person's qualifications to do the job, a mistake is being made.

• Report this Comment On December 08, 2009, at 3:38 PM, pondee619 wrote:

• Report this Comment On December 08, 2009, at 4:50 PM, TMFKris wrote:

  I (the author of this piece) also don't understand the French reasoning, although I've not researched the matter. But Norway mandated 40 percent female membership in 2003. Here's an NYT article on that http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/business/worldbusiness/21i...

  Such mandates would seem to fuel resentment against the women and force the promotion of unqualified people.

  So what's the legitimate way to increase women's numbers in the boardroom? Is the low number a problem or just part of how society works, if fewer women take business courses or are unable because of motherhood to put in all the time needed. (That's an if, no need to pounce on me.)

  It's a good topic with a lot of questions.

  Kris (Motley Fool copyeditor)

• Report this Comment On December 08, 2009, at 7:30 PM, DDHv wrote:

  <i>I'll kick in your ten cents worth. Any time anyone is hired or promoted based on anything other than that person's qualifications to do the job, a mistake is being made.</i>

  I once read a comment that in a good family, the women is the heart of the family. I know I'd do less without my wife - sorry, a slight tendency to laziness there! ;-)

  My wife dislikes math, but is backing me up in the investing. Hating to disappoint her makes me more thoughtful. 6% above the market for the year at present. Not great, but adequate.

• Report this Comment On December 08, 2009, at 7:52 PM, tkell31 wrote:

  Seems like a good idea to me. As it currently stands men dominant boards and most companies fail. You could argue cause and effect v coincidence, but until we give women a shot we'll never know.

• Report this Comment On December 15, 2009, at 8:06 PM, n8larson wrote:

  i disagree with mandated quotas, but if you're going to 'affirmative action' your way to "equality", then 50-50 is the wrong way to go. board representation should approximate the gender mix of the applicant pool, or possibly the employee mix, not the overall population. i'd venture that even in France, many women choose to raise a family instead of working. because the applicant pool is highly unlikely to represent the population as a whole, then pretty much by definition, a 50-50 quota means that a less-qualified woman will be chosen over a more-qualified man. since the bottom line is qualifications, not gender, the company will be worse off.

Add your comment.