This is a rant. This rant is courtesy of a recent survey of Canadian executives wherein the results indicate that most are not concerned about the number of women in executive ranks or on their board. This after study, upon study, that shows companies that have women on boards and with greater representation in the executive level, show better financial results. So how is it that still there is this outdated, neanderthal thinking that "hey, we're good. Leave good enough alone."One of the executives in the article (a female unfortunately) states:
“I do think that it makes sense to have diversity on a board, and it would be great to have a woman on our board, but it comes down to whether there would be someone who would be suitable to join.”
Argghhh! Really? I'm sorry, but if you don't think that there are highly qualified women who can bring a lot of insight and experience to your company than you haven't been looking very hard. This is the same excuse that has been used to exclude women and others from the boardrooms and C-suite for decades. "We just want to have the best candidate, what's wrong with that."
Well guess what? There is nothing wrong with that. The reality is that the best candidate would often be a woman, but you haven't made the effort to find her. You have done the normal search or maybe gotten one of your golf buddies, someone that mirrors who you are and how you think to participate in your company.
Some people use the example of the new CEO of GM or the CEO of Pepsi-Co and a couple of others to say "See, a woman was the best candidate and therefore she got the job." My rejoinder to that would be there were probably a number of qualified woman for those and many of the CEO jobs across the world, prior to these amazing and qualified woman breaking through.
I wrote about philharmonic orchestras in a previous blog (Blind Auditions) wherein the exact same argument was used by symphonies to explain why there weren't more (or any) women in their orchestra. "Gee, if only women were as good as men musicians, we certainly would have some," was the refrain. However, not surprisingly, when blind auditions were instituted, wherein the "hirer" could only hear the music and not see the player, the number of women suddenly increased. Do you think that was just because magically women all of a sudden got their game-on and were better musicians? No, it was because systematic discrimination was built into the process.
When I was working at a company where we needed a new supervisor in one of our major distribution centres, my team presented me with a shortlist of guys for the role. I indicated that I would not sign-off on any hire, unless there was a woman in the mix. They didn't have to hire the woman, but they had to have one who would be considered as a candidate. After two weeks they came back and said they hadn't been able to find one. My response of "So sad, too bad" and that the role would remain vacant until they were able to consider a qualified female applicant. Another couple of weeks went by, they found a woman for the role, whom they interviewed. I did not interview any of the candidates, I left it up them to hire the best candidate.
Well, they ended up hiring the woman for this supervisory role. And guess what? In six months, my team indicated that she was the best supervisor in this distribution centre, and on top of that, she changed the dynamic amongst the entire team, and it was better for it. Had I let them just hire those who were "easily" found, we would of ended up with the same-old, same-old. Instead we ended up with the best. Unfortunately the only reason she ended up being hired, was because I was in a position to make them look for a woman. Not hire, but look.
I do not advocate quotas because that usually sends the wrong message. But I strongly suggest that anyone who is hiring for anything, whether a supervisor in a male-dominated industry or function, for any role, but particularly for a senior leadership role or for the board, that there is, at minimum, one woman put into the mix for consideration. Perhaps even just have "blind auditions" as suggested in my previous blog. I guarantee you that very quickly women would start populating the corporate landscape in all sorts of roles, because the best candidate for the job would be hired and she would be great!
(note: you can also read "You've come a long way baby, or have we really?" for an additional perspective)
No comments:
Post a Comment