Comments on: No quotas for women on corporate boards Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: wtarken Fri, 04 Feb 2011 22:18:16 +0000 It’s really a pipeline issue in getting more women onto boards. We’ve found rporate-Women-Solutions-Work women tend to fall out of the pipeline as they take care of family and childcare issues. They don’t progress and get the jobs and visibility needed to position themselves for board level opportunities.

They also are at a disadvantage because companies tend to find candidates through processes that usually have more men in the system such as search firms or the CEOs friends and acquaintances. They tend to surface those with prior experience who would be predominately men. Women need to proactively network their way on in

By: krishnamurthi ramachandran Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:52:00 +0000 Dear Writer,
I liked all your writings in regard to corporate and economic affairs from time to time.
After reading of this article from some special interests,the following points for general observations and for further debates in higher corporate schools for learning as well as implementation in future growth.
1.I have observed many leading Indian and from some Asian companies,corporate heads of women are for just official and business records only.
2.I have not seen remarkable progress on resource mobilizations,corporate briefings,and getting more profits to their companies.
Here is a exception,Pepsi is doing well,due to very innovative,flexible attitudes by a single woman in general.
3.In India,many corporate women heads joined together and started a big chain of super markets,like Wall Mart,but failed miserably and it was closed.
4.There is no proper constant,consistency approaches to all big problems
5.Psychologically reading,Many women are highly sensitive and emotional.
6.Some times, over gossiping leads to very less growth in all companies spheres.
&.Easily provoking,difficult to withstand all hard pressure while dealing with their clients,labors,and with government agencies for getting licences,tax submissions and in audit submissions to revenue authorities.
Still i can write more and more merits and demerits of women corporate heads,functioning etc.,
Rest of things are left you for further debate.
Once women corporate start with flying colors,then,their invisible egos will create strife situations either at home or at office.

By: Fiona Christine Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:07:30 +0000 Have you ever considered that because women are involved in the auditing process that the books aren’t cooked in the first place?

It’s a simple but common phenomenon in corporations worldwide.

Here’s an example: Enron had no female board members. Enron paid Arthur Anderson millions per year as accountants and as consultants, creating a conflict of interest. When Sherron Watkins (a mid level female executive) wrote her now famous memo, warning of the impending accounting scandals, she was ignored.

The way American corporations report profits is not scientific nor is it representative of their real balance sheets.

For instance, FASB accounting rules allow banks to massage data on their toxic assets at their own discretion and report their value as higher than the current mark to market prices.

Goldman Sachs, is currently using an illegal flash order system in their high frequency trading platform to manipulate market prices and skim from slower investor’s profit margins, creating billions in profits at the expense of retail and institutional investors alike. Furthermore, when Goldman reported it’s latest record profit.

From Bloomberg: “Revenue in the three months ended June 26 was $13.8 billion, compared with $9.43 billion in the first quarter and $9.42 billion in the second quarter a year earlier.” 0601087&sid=a2jo3RK2_Aps

The CEO purposefully lied about the amount of revenue it claims Goldman receives from High Frequency Trading.

With less female MBA and law graduates, the chance of them entering the business/management sphere are lower, and if and when they climb up the corporate ladder, they have to put their ethics aside if they intend to compete with men in the culture of corporate corruption. Because that’s what we’re really talking about.

Let’s get to the bottom line: Most publicly listed corporations are not run ethically, or for the purpose of increasing a firm’s health, longevity or value to society, but for the sole purpose of short term profit using any means necessary, so the board members and executives can cash out their stock options, faster and at a higher profit.

By: SarahA Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:27:17 +0000 I will be interested to see how the numbers change when all the baby boomers have finally moved out of senior management.

By: Joe Mezzo Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:18:10 +0000 Its possible the reason why so few women are on Corporate Boards are because the remaining 84% of the males that are on these boards are married to women who are generally homemakers. Thus they may not perceive many women in this role.

By: Phoenix Bailey Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:11:56 +0000 Look around, you will see that American corporations have depended on predatory practices and policies to bring in the very highest profit possible: “Chief executive officers of companies with female directors are held to a higher standard of accountability.” Well duh, if someone is actually looking over the CEO’s shoulder in stead of turning a blind eye, of course the predatory practices that are required in order to bring in the absolute MAXIMUM PROFIT POSSIBLE in any given business will be curtailed, hence less profit. I, for one, am OK with less profits brought in by corporations when the difference is not being squashed and squeezed and bled dry by some capatalist who wants to upgrade their yacht.
Up with quotas, down with economic depredation!!

By: NANCYB Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:38:42 +0000 Perhaps the reason why women on the Boards resulted in a bit less profit was because they were keeping the company honest — much of our financial crisis over the past 2 years was the result of guys inflating profits to increase their own benefit in the form of stock options, and to come up with things like shaky real estate investment propositions that were actually a house of cards — perhaps smaller REAL profits aren’t a bad thing.

By: Cyndi Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:33:01 +0000 This actually doesn’t strike me as exactly counter-intuitive. A better-governed business is probably providing more support to employees in the form of better pay and better benefits. These things cost companies a lot of money, so there would be less “profit” at the end of the day. I think women, because of a (cultural or biological) tendency to take a holistic view, are also more likely to be proactive on taking care of employees and making more socially-beneficial decisions. Good for society, but not so good for individual companies.

By: Jeff Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:48:36 +0000 Unfortunately I see the situation as much more grave than the bleak picture which is current. Corporations have been seeking to lower all levels of pay within the ranks for years. This will give them an excuse to lower pay by eliminating the higher paid executives. Unfortunately , in the intuitive sense, having a lower paid executive (male or female) may result in circumstances which are less conducive to the company performing. After all, this is a Capitalistic society, the top person wants ALL the money – typically. I beleive the term for this is…Greed. Greed will stand in the way of any appropriate result.

Skill levels at all position titles are being reduced for the sake of one person’s profit and for stock prices. If companies are required to change staff – no matter who they hire, the end result will be a lower skill level and a lower pay for that person. I have already experienced this myself. I found out how much my replacement was getting paid – it was approximately 30% less. The justification for the pay was skill level, experience, and education.

I do beleive that me assisting to save the company (prior to this) was considered irrelevant.

By: SpudM Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:45:50 +0000 After all the philosophy, and the laws and proposals, the results remain the same. Male-dominated government, corporate suites, and social acceptance have led to wars, poverty, gross inequity and the decline of the American dream to second class status in the world. It’s time to try something else, without delay, and quotas ARE needed to make it happen NOW.