Women Leaders on Boards – Making the Most of the Emerging Mandate
Niranjana Harikumar
Ever heard of “man leaders”? The term seems rather tautological and awkward to any reader whereas the term “woman leader” has become normalized in corporate parlance. This simple fact proves to us that even today, a woman leader is more an exception than a rule. A quick look at statistics corroborates this. Of the 22.6 percent of women employed in organizations in India (The Corporate Gender Gap Report 2010 , 2010), a mere 3 – 6% are in senior management positions, much lower than the global average of 20 percent. The proportion of women who are part of the Board of Directors in these organizations is a dismal 4.6 percent (Corporate Women Directors International, Comparative Percentage of Women). Similarly, as per data from the Bombay Stock Exchange, in 2010, out of 1112 directors of 100 listed companies, only 59 positions were occupied by 48 women, a figure once again of just around 5 percent.
However, this is all set to change with the advent of the Companies Bill, recently passed by parliament, mandating that the board of every publicly listed company will need to have at least one woman director, beginning October 1, 2014. According to the All India Management Association, this would entail that Indian companies require around 966 women directors to meet these requirements. This has put many companies in a tizzy, struggling to find suitable candidates because of the lack of focus so far on creating a pipeline of women leaders. In the short term, headhunting firms may be used to target appropriate leaders from the limited pool of top level women leaders. Some Indian promoter-driven organizations may also look at inducting women from the family into director positions in order to fulfil this mandate. However, these are not sustainable solutions. In the long term, every organization will need to focus on building a strong pipeline of women leaders. Some difficult questions may need to be asked and some honest introspection done in order for this to happen. Addressing structural / policy related aspects of gender diversity alone such as flexible work arrangements, maternity related benefits and hiring intake specifications may not work. What may be more critical is taking an honest look at the more entrenched attitudes and mindset towards women in leadership roles.
Understanding the organizational realities for women employees
To start with, many organizations will need to invest time in understanding the organization specific barriers that women employees may be encountering, whether structural or systemic. It may be worthwhile to ask women from every level and area of the organization about their experiences and seek feedback for creating a more conducive environment for nurturing women leaders.
For example, an examination of the levels at which “talent leakages” of female talent happen will help. Also, the distribution of female talent across various divisions and levels is another area to derive critical insights from – where in the organization is the invisible “glass ceiling” getting formed? What are the reasons for “talent leakages”? Is there an appreciation of the fact that men and women may have different life stages and therefore career “ramp-ups” and “ramp-downs”? What roles do women occupy vis-a-vis men? How do the organization’s key processes such as recruitment, talent management and performance management assimilate key gender issues and biases?
Dealing with systemic biases against women
This takes a courageous challenging of gender-based stereotypes about women and leadership. Leadership has historically been seen as a male bastion with qualities typically associated with it being stereotyped as “male”. A woman aspiring to a leadership role encounters an interesting conundrum – a double bind, so to say. On one hand, she is expected to display stereotypically feminine qualities, failing which she will be evaluated poorly by others as a woman. On the other hand, she is also expected to display leadership qualities which are stereotypically male, failing which she will be evaluated poorly as a leader. For example, a woman who is assertive is seen as “aggressive” and therefore evaluated unfavourably as a woman whereas a woman who is mild is seen as too feminine and not possessing the qualities needed to be a successful leader. This leads to a lose-lose scenario where a woman leader is evaluated unfavourably irrespective of how she behaves.
Understanding the reality behind “workplace meritocracy”
The current mandate to have at least one woman director on boards is often met with scepticism and resistance on the logic of a need for “workplace meritocracy” rather than “quotas”. This is again a topic that warrants discussion. There is an implicit assumption here of a level playing field which is unfortunately not the case for women most often. Merit is not a static concept defined in black and white – it is subjective and based on people’s judgment of what constitutes merit. Thus, by definition, it is prone to unconscious bias. For example, boards that insist on only selecting directors with previous board experience will end up excluding several qualified women who may otherwise be qualified for this position and thus reinforcing a bias that already exists. Similarly, assessing employee potential can also be notoriously subjective and prone to biases. These points need to be called out and a dialogue created around these in order to build greater buyin and awareness for diversity within boards.
Dealing with tokenism
With the new mandate, there is a real risk of many organizations appointing a woman director merely for compliance reasons rather than with a clear business rationale. The myriad business benefits of diversity on boards will be lost out if the woman director is made to feel like a figurehead and there is an absence of real dialogue and respect.
In fact, the token woman director may in fact do more harm than good with the “token minority” individual suffering from performance pressure, exclusion and assimilation into stereotyped categories. Thus, the way forward will be about increasing diversity of boards through a real focus on building a diverse leadership pipeline rather than just focusing on compliance. With women leaders becoming more commonplace, prejudices are also likely to reduce.
Triggering a discussion on the leadership team’s philosophy on diversity
Hard-hitting questions need to be asked on whether identifying and sponsoring top female talent is indeed a strategic priority for the organization’s CEO, top leadership team and board. Readiness to role model a commitment towards gender diversity and equity in its action and communication is also a prerequisite. The leadership team will need to examine its current gender mix and assess the representation of women in key decision-making roles. A reporting mechanism of metrics and measures to ensure that there is a continued focus on diversity is also critical.
Niranjana Harikumar is an Organizational Development consultant who has worked with several organizations on assignments involving managing talent, culture and leadership transformation as well as employer brand management. She is also currently doing her doctoral research on women in leadership roles.
