Article Link
On September 30, a new California law was signed, requiring publicly listed companies to have at least one woman on their board of directors by the end of 2019. The number of female directors will increase proportionate to the amount of directors in the company. For example, if a company had 5 directors, they would require two female directors. Those who do not comply can face a fine of at least $100,000 and up to $300,000. Major companies such as Apple, Google, and Facebook, who have their headquarters in California, will have to add one more woman to their board of directors to fulfill the requirements by 2021.
Ultimately, although it is good that there would be equal opportunity for women to get a position in public companies, it is also important to realize that such an implementation would not be easy. Forcing a company to have female board of directors could cause internal issues. Board of Directors are appointed and nominated by boards and must be approved by a majority of executive shareholders. Directors must be able to comply with the shareholders. In my opinion, it does not matter if the board of directors in a company has a majority of male or female, it is more important that companies designate their board of directors by regarding their skill level and experience in the field of work. With a single woman on the board of directors, they can be pawns of other board executives and become a free vote. Instead of having it instituted at such a high level, it should be tried in smaller companies to see the effects.
Discussion Questions
1. How can an implementation of woman in a board of directors harmful or beneficial to a corporate company?
2. Do you agree with Senator Jackson's claim that "gender diversity on corporate boards is associated with increased profitability, performance, governance, innovation, and opportunity?"
3. How could California law makers have implemented this law differently to reduce the effects of companies having to scramble to find suitable candidates?
I am somewhat split on this argument. On one hand, I agree that the law should be passed to make those who are prejudiced against women understand that women are not inferior. On the other hand, that would be difficult to promote equality if the company were trying to elect any woman to take the position simply to follow the rule. As a solution, I propose that there be a regulator in the appointment process to ensure that the process is not simply made to abide the law. Although is somewhat tedious and some may even go far enough to consider it excessive, any change takes work and I think it is very important that companies achieve equality on as many levels possible. Overall, I agree that all the board members should be elected by merit, not by gender. Another possible solution could be having a blind appointment process in which the potential member is unknown. In any case, I know that I live in a bubble and that I take gender equality for granted. I feel like it isn't a pressing issue in my life and experience, but I know that it is in other places which is why I think such measures should be taken.
ReplyDeleteI see why people would oppose this law, especially because some parallels can be drawn between affirmative action and this mandate. But I can only see this law being beneficial in the long run. If you look at the CEOs and leaders of these big companies, many of them are rich, old, white men. These positions are usually filled through connections or nepotism, which is unfair especially for women. There are so many women that are more than qualified to fill these positions, but they just lack the opportunity to acquire them. This law will only push companies to look beyond their usual candidates and pick women that are deserving and can do the job just as well as men, even better. I think that companies have more than enough time to find qualified candidates to fill these positions, and the law seems very reasonable.
ReplyDeleteI somewhat agree, however, my concern is that this will only solve the problem that it is an all men board and it will show "diversity". What women are fighting for is equality and to break the glass ceiling, not just a name in the board. Women want to be respected and not just feel as if they got the position because of a law that was passed. Also, the women should be evaluated and chosen based on their skill, and not just because they need a woman on the board. This could help and damage companies in the long run based on how well they chose their female board members.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this law is morally right and going in the right direction. It allows for women to be represented but has the issue of filling that position with any women, meaning an unqualified women can take the position. It is on the right direction of giving women a chance to be represented and allows them to get more opportunities. Through further efforts similar to this, women can be better represented and given the same and equal opportunities.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this California Law has both major upsides, but also a couple of possible problems. On one hand, I think it is a big societal step that companies will now have no other choice but to consider women for high positions within their businesses. Through this, women can gain a more fair representation in aspects that before they lacked the same opportunities as men who may have been just as qualified as them. However, the law also has a downside in that certain jobs would no longer be awarded based on merit, but rather by who will get a company the diversity that they want. If it came down to two candidates, one male and one female, and a company would only choose the female candidate based on her gender, I do not think that that is fair towards either individual. In other words, this law could also cause companies to simply hire women to abide the law, not because they strive to change their dynamic within the workspace or because the woman is necessarily the best candidate for the job. Overall, while there are possible drawbacks to this law, I think that it embodies the importance of equality and equal opportunity in the workspace.
ReplyDeleteThe implementation of this law creates for gender diversity in business, especially the upper levels of corporations. It is a big step in closing the gender inequality gap in the workplace. However, the reality is that there may be some male candidates that are more experience and/or better suited for the job, but might get overlooked due to this new law. I think that there is no other manner in which California could have introduced this law that wouldn't have caused slight chaos to find more female candidates. I believe that the scramble for companies actually further shows the importance of this law because it is evident that companies are not hiring enough credited female workers already. If a company already had a diverse workforce then this law should not be a struggle to comply with. There are equally as many experience females as there are males. This law is necessary for the advancement of equality in the workforce.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Senator Jackson's claim. More diversity, whether that be in terms of gender or race, allows for a multitude of new and different viewpoints to be shared on a company board of directors. This law allows not only allows for a small new change to be made in companies to promote gender equality, but it also signals a trend for gender equality that will hopefully extend and continue into the future.
ReplyDeleteI can see the point of the side that thinks this law is flawed. People, men and women alike, may be opposed to this law because they think that appointing someone to be on a board position should solely be based on "merit." Then, when this law is passed, people who deserve it will be passed up because women are taking the positions in order to fulfill a quota. Yet, I think that this law does more good than it does bad. Women often face struggles in being able to attain higher positions in the workplace because of their gender. With the implementation of this law, it gives companies an extra push and incentive to make their boards more diverse and for women to reach the status they deserve. Not only this, but with women making up a larger number of the workforce but not being as well represented in boards, this law will help their voices be heard and help be a more accurate representation of the people they serve. Hopefully this will lead a wave in women being more often represented in higher positions, not only in California.
ReplyDeleteThis law, like most other laws, is not perfect. It raises valid objections—people should be hired based on their qualifications for that position, not in order to fill a quota. However, in corporations today that isn't happening consistently. Men are disproportionately represented in high-level corporate positions, despite an equal number of qualified women. In order to reverse this trend it is necessary to mandate female representation in those high-level positions. Ultimately this law is a crucial step towards gender equality and should be implemented despite imperfections surrounding "merit" qualifications.
ReplyDelete1. Having women on the board of directors could provide a beneficial new viewpoint on company strategy. However, it could also be harmful if the elected board member is not qualified enough.
ReplyDelete2. I'm not sure if such a study has been performed, but there's lots of randomness in the economy, so even if a study were performed, I would hesitate to trust it's results, no matter what results it gave. By the time there's enough data to be sure, the old data might not be relevant to the current market.
3. Perhaps a rolling deadline, with growing non-compliance fines. It would discourage companies from scrambling by allowing them to take on acceptable losses, up until they think they've found the right person, or it takes them so long they are forced to settle. Constant and growing feedback is better than a hard deadline at encouraging change.
In my opinion, the board of directors should consist of the most qualified candidates. Choosing a female just because of her gender is not the correct approach. While I support other legislation that gets more women in male-dominated work places, I feel as though the Board of Directors of a company is different. I like the intention behind the law, but it just creates a ton of chaos. I think society should put more of an emphasis on getting more women as qualified as men so gender shouldn't be an issue. I am not completely against this law, but I don't think it is necessary for the Board of Directors. Choosing members of the Board of a company based on gender can be detrimental in the long run because the board should consist of the more experienced and qualified people, it isn't a place for experimentation. I do not necessarily agree with Senator Jackson's claim. Having women on the Board is great and should be encouraged but it is not necessary for the profitability of the business.
ReplyDelete