Tags

  • Published on

    Is gender reporting the right thing to focus on?

    CEO Chairman Decision Making Diversity Governance Phd Productivity Research
    The debate surrounding the benefit of women on boards is starting to heat up. Eight days ago, NZX announced it's decision to require gender diversity reporting for all publicly listed boards. Yesterday, an article by Richard Baker asserted that "gender diversity is not essential to the good running of major companies". Today, Denis Mowbray challenged the NZX proposal. He said it is "intellectually lazy" to isolate a single characteristic (like gender).

    I agree with Baker and Mowbray. Governance is a socially dynamic phenomenon, with many variables and much complexity. Numerous researchers and practitioners have investigated structural and composition factors over many years. More recently, world-class governance researchers, including Leblanc, Huse and Nicholson, have investigated behavioural and process factors. To date, the research findings have been inconclusive, and causality with performance is yet to be established.

    Despite flights of fancy from some commentators, slow progress by researchers, and much frustration all round, the search for a link between governance and company performance is of enormous practical importance. Therefore, efforts to understand the mechanisms within the governance phenomena, and any relationship with company performance, must continue. However, the research agenda much be changed. Attention must move away from consideration of individual characteristics—toward a holistic consideration of governance—if further insights are to be gained and any clear understanding is to be achieved.

    My doctoral research efforts attempt to build on Leblanc and Nicholson's work. I plan to use a longitudinal multiple-case study approach (to understand the processes, behaviours and dynamic interactions within the governance system) to focus on the way Boards make decisions. Strategic decision-making has been postulated to be an important factor in the governance–performance relationship. If this is correct, a link between a strategic decisions and subsequent improved company performance should be apparent, after some longitudinal delay. The challenge will be to determine whether or not strategic decision-making can be attributed to the Board.

    So where does this leave us? I certainly don't have any silver bullets, and progress is likely to be frustratingly slow. Boardroom diversity is important, however I suspect a focus on decision-making and related factors will reveal more about board performance than arguments about the number of women at the board table. Let's push on.

  • Published on

    Skirts and/or Shirts: what difference does it make?

    Diversity Governance Leadership Research

    Calls for more women on boards have been coming thick and fast for a while now. Many proponents (here, here, here) are taking a stand, and the noise seems to be reaching a crescendo. The growing body of research that women make a difference is starting to look compelling. 

    The presence of women on boards seems to be associated with many positive aspects of governance, particularly behavioural aspects, including:

    Women are also better at processing information. However, evidence relating to one metric—some would say the most important one—is still remarkably elusive. Does the presence of woman on company Boards lead to improved financial performance? Is there a causal link? Inferential associations have been made, but no solid evidence has been demonstrated yet. If a causal link does exist, we need to find it. We need to move beyond the emotion, rhetoric, quotas and sideshows, to solid evidence. Then we can move on.

  • Published on

    Gender diversity disclosures...on what basis?

    Complexity Diversity Effectiveness Governance Performance

    The discussion about gender diversity disclosures this week piqued my interest.

    Are these calls for gender and age disclosures simply representative of societal pressures towards inclusiveness, or are they because increased gender and age diversity is linked to increased company performance?

    Researchers have been studying the supposed link between board composition factors and company performance for many years. To date, their findings are inconclusive. Gender diversity does, however, seem to lead to more civilised debate in the boardroom, higher accountabilities and better attendance. So, there appears to be goodness in diversity. However, we must to be careful not to confuse these inputs and activity with the desired output of increased company performance.

    New Zealand was first to give women the vote, and that was good for society. Moving towards diversity in the boardroom may also be good for society. However, we don't know that yet. 

    I applaud any move towards increased transparency and disclosure, particularly for listed companies. However, if the motivation is to move down a diversity pathway for which no solid evidence linking increased diversity to company performance is available, are we not on dangerous ground?