Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Figure 1.
Why women are needed on boards be associated with long term company success
and competitive advantage (Cassell, 1997), adding
Numerous arguments for the recruitment of value through womens distinctive set of skills
women nonexecutive directors have been (Green and Cassell, 1996), and creating cultures
proposed. They include: (a) increased diversity of of inclusion through a diverse workforce (Shultz,
opinions in the boardroom (Catalyst, 1995a), (b) 1995; Thomas, 1990). It has also been argued
women directors bringing strategic input to the that as women directors tend to be younger than
board (Bilimoria, 2000), (c) influence on decision their male colleagues on the board, the boards
making and leadership styles of the organization may benefit from new ideas and strategies (Burke,
(Rosener, 1990), (d) providing female role 1994; Ibrahim and Angelidis, 1994).
models and mentors (Catalyst, 1995a), (e) The Australian Report of the Industry Task
improving company image with stakeholder Force on Leadership and Management (Burton
groups, (f ) womens capabilities and availability and Ryall, 1995) suggested that women directors
for director positions (Mattis, 1997), (g) insuffi- are economically advantageous to a company.
cient competent male directors (Burke and The report claimed that well-balanced boards
Kurucz, 1998), and (h) ensuring better board- that include women directors reduce the likeli-
room behavior (Across the Board, 1994). hood of corporate failures. Homogeneous groups
Women have been found to contribute to tend to have homogenous ways of solving
governance, reducing CEO dominance due company problems: group think errors would
to their power sharing style (Bradshaw et al., be less likely to occur with a heterogeneous
1992). Woman directors, especially outsider board.
directors, contribute an independent view to Corporate women directors are also thought
the board (Fondas, 2000) and demonstrated how to serve as role models (Catalyst, 1998a),
one woman directors intervention can change mentors, and champions for high performing
the strategic direction of a company (Selby, women in the organizational, and monitor the
2000). application of social justice and equity policies in
Having women in key positions is argued to recruitment (Burke and McKeen, 1993).
Women Board Directors: Characteristics of the Few 41
Rather than argue for the appointment of virtue of their specialist expertise, industry
women directors on the basis of equal opportu- contacts, or prior experience.
nity, social justice, and fairness, the arguments for In the United States, nonexecutive directors
womens inclusion on boards have been presented are usually called outsiders or outside directors.
in terms of a business case (Cassell, 1997; Executive directors are usually called insiders
Sweetman, 1996). Sweetman (1996) claimed that or inside directors, although the definition can
women directors add value to a company through vary somewhat. Catalyst (1998c) defines inside
their contribution to business by participation on directors as officers of a company who serve as
company boards. Cassell (1997) put objectives of members of its board. Kesner notes that
business success and competitive advantage at insiders can also be retired executives of the
the center of the business case. An important company (Kesner, 1988). Bilimoria and Piderit
aspect of Cassells business case for the inclusion (1994) also include relatives of current and
of women executives was the recognition of former directors in their definition of inside
changing demographics trends on labor force directors.
demographics. Executive directors gain their position through
Increased profitability has been claimed to be normal career progression, typically rising to the
associated with the appointment of female direc- positions of Chief Executive Officer of Chief
tors in the United States (Catalyst, 1995a). Of Financial Officer, thus automatically inheriting
the 50 most profitable United States companies a seat on the board. Nonexecutive directors are
in the Fortune 500 listing, 82% had at least one appointed by invitation of the board chairman or
female director, and all top 10 companies had a nominating committee. Often the board will
female directors on their boards (Catalyst, seek out CEOs of other companies to invite onto
1995b). Similarly, most of the top 20 companies the board, however as the selection of candidates
in Australia have at least one woman board is at the discretion of the chairman or nominating
member (Korn/Ferry International, 1997). Daily committee, there is the discretion to select other
et al. (1999) claimed that inclusion of women less obviously qualified candidates. Nonexecutive
on corporate boards would allow companies to directorships are attractive to women as a means
access the full range of intellectual capital of obtaining board directorships to bypass the
available. Womens strong influence on consumer traditional hurdle of becoming a CEO before
purchases, and on Americas workforce, suggests being nominated to a board position.
that companies should have a female perspective The results of Burgess and Tharenous (2000)
on their boards (Crain and Snyder, 1998). study of 572 women directors support different
In summary, the weight of argument appears factors being related to womens appointment to
in agreement on the value of women on boards as nonexecutive versus executive directors.
boards of directors, for a multiplicity of positive Women executive directors were distinguished
effects. from executive directors by having greater man-
agerial advancement, higher education levels, and
being older, suggesting more human capital.
How obtaining a board seat arises Suggesting the influence of social capital, they
were employed in less male managerial hierar-
There are two different categories of company chies, and had more years working with other
directors executive directors and nonexecutive women directors, but had less mentor support.
directors each being appointed in different Women nonexecutive directors were more likely
ways. Executive directors are senior company to be employed in higher occupation types, the
executives who have a place on the board public sector, and in larger organizations than
because of their position within the company. executive directors were.
Nonexecutive directors are persons whose
primary employment is external to the organi-
zational and hold a position on the board by
42 Zena Burgess and Phyllis Tharenou
Bradshaw and Wicks (2000) examined sources McGregor (1997) listed a range of activities
of influence as reported by the women and relevant for a proactive approach as documenting
success factors in a detailed interview study of achievements, focusing ones resume, answering
Canadian women directors experiences. The public advertisements, participating in ongoing
strategies women used to gain influence on the professional training as a director, corresponding
Board formed a continuum from trying to fit in with Board chairmen, attending shareholder
with the prevailing male view to a strategy of meetings, networking and forming alliances.
aggressive confrontations and ultimatums at the
other end. The women directors reported they
adjusted their strategies for influence depending Extending media management skills
on the nature and composition of the board, the
issue under discussion, and their perception of Related to creating a public image, is an under-
their own status on the board. standing of media that enables it to be used as
Regardless of the strategies the women used a tool for self-promotion. McGregor (1997)
to gain influence within board meetings, women suggested a broad range of strategies such as
directors acknowledged that some decision attracting media coverage, public speaking, using
making occurred outside board meetings talkback and letters to the editor of newspapers,
(Bradshaw and Wicks, 2000; Selby, 2000). developing contacts with journalists, becoming
Women directors common strategy of building a skilled communicator, participating in business
alliances, networking, and lobbying was seen as and professional forums, entering public debate,
advantageous (Bradshaw and Wicks, 2000). and developing lobbying and negotiation skills.
Women directors commonly attributed their
success on the board to hard work, demonstrating
their willingness to work hard, and their com- The importance of networks
mitment to male colleagues (Bradshaw and
Wicks, 2000). Women need to develop strong networks and
Researchers have identified a number of strate- alliances that will support their promotion as
gies to assist women to enhance their profile as directors. Established social networks of board
suitable candidates. directors advantage men (Israeli and Talmud,
1997). Women may need to rely on strong ties
with significant strategic allies. The connection
Creating a public image with allies should include overlapping interests
with friendship, trust and mutual commitment
Women who are publicly recognized and have a (Israeli and Talmud, 1997). Sheridan (2001), in
high profile have attained a greater number of a recent study of women directors of public com-
directorship than those women with a lesser panies, reaffirmed the importance of networks for
profile (McGregor, 1997). McGregor argued for facilitating board appointments.
women who seek appointment as directors to
develop a conscious and planned strategy to
creating a public image. Women may need public Training and career development
relations and visibility promoting strategies to
establish a public profile for themselves (Pollak, Few women have commensurate upper manage-
2000). ment line experience in areas such as marketing
and operations. Therefore, training and devel-
opment may help women who seek to be direc-
Proactive approach to board selection tors compensate for lack of experience. Whatever
leadership experience a woman can obtain will
Women need to volunteer, self-promote, and be helpful, especially if the leadership experience
have the self-confidence to take initiatives. includes profit and loss responsibility (Pollak,
44 Zena Burgess and Phyllis Tharenou
2000). Pollak (2000) also recommended women problematic due to significant differences in
obtain international experience and previous survey samples. For instance, in the United
board experience even if it is in the health or States, researchers commonly use the Fortune
not-for-profit sector. 500 as a sample population, and they are rou-
tinely surveyed by Catalyst (1998c). However,
when Catalyst (1998b) attempted to replicate
CEO and board contacts their research in Canada using the Financial Post
500 they found serious shortcomings in this
The importance of building and maintain sample compared to the Fortune 500. Catalyst
contacts with CEOs and other board members attempted to compensate by introducing the top
cannot be underestimated for women seeking 20 financial institutions, top 20 life insurance
board appointments. A recent study of boards of companies, and the top 20 crown (government
public companies (Sheridan, 2001) found that for owned) companies into their sample. This was of
boards on which women had served longest, 35% such limited success that Catalyst (1998b) felt
of the sample had gained their appointment compelled to report many of the statistics sepa-
through CEO recommendation and a further rately for the different groups. Although Catalyst
33% attributed their appointment to recommen- went on to make comparisons between their
dation of another board member. For those adjusted Canadian sample and the Fortune 500,
women in the sample holding multiple director- it is not clear that such comparisons are valid
ships other board members were instrumental in because of the different characteristics of the two
assisting them gain appointments as was an exec- samples.
utive search firm (13%). The size of the companies making up the
Fortune 500 are so large that they dwarf the
companies that necessarily make up the samples
International comparisons of in other countries. Organizational size is one of
characteristics the most consistent predictors of an organization
having women directors (Burke, 2000b; Catalyst,
What then is the profile female board directors? 1998b; Harrigan, 1981). As the Fortune 500
Do they exhibit any particular traits that set them companies are so large, it is questionable whether
apart from the general populace? A summary of a comparison between the Fortune 500 and
the characteristics of women directors follows, any sample from another country will be a valid
based on reported data available from various comparison between countries. Any such com-
authors. parison is likely to be clouded by the differences
Recent international research findings across between the sizes of the organizations in the
a number of different countries provide detailed samples.
data for the United States (Mattis, 2000), Britain Even within the United States, statistics from
(Vinnicombe et al., 2000), Israel (Izraeli, 2000), the National Foundation of Women Business
Canada (Burke, 2000a), and New Zealand Owners (NFWBO, 1996) illustrate the difference
(McGregor, 2000). Organizations that periodi- between very large organizations and smaller
cally provide descriptive information are organizations. Whereas in 1996 the percentage
Korn/Ferry International (1998) in Australia, of board sets held by women in Fortune 500 cor-
Catalyst (1998c) in the United States, and porations was only 10.2% (Catalyst, 1998c), the
Ashridge Management Research in the United percentage of all United States businesses owned
Kingdom (Holton, 2000). Australian data used by women was 36% (NFWBO, 1996). Although
for these comparisons were obtained from a the two statistics are not directly comparable,
national survey performed by the authors in clearly the characteristics of organizations in the
1996. two samples, one a sample of only the largest
Comparisons between the statistics across dif- companies, the other a sample of companies of
ferent researchers and different countries are all sizes, will also be very different.
Women Board Directors: Characteristics of the Few 45
TABLE I
International comparisons of directors ages
Note. A dash in a cell of the table signifies that the corresponding data item was not reported.
a
Burgess and Tharenou, unpublished manuscript.
b
Catalyst, 1993.
c
Burke, 1994.
d
Holton, Rabbetts and Schrivener, 1993.
e
Pajo, McGregor, and Cleland, 1997.
f
Talmud and Izraeli, 1998.
g
Sample size estimated from method description.
46 Zena Burgess and Phyllis Tharenou
TABLE II
International comparisons of education
Note. A dash in a cell of the table signifies that the corresponding data item was not reported.
a
Burgess and Tharenou, unpublished manuscript.
b
Catalyst, 1993.
c
Burke, 1994.
d
Pajo, McGregor, and Cleland, 1997.
e
Talmud and Izraeli, 1998.
f
Sample size estimated from method description.
TABLE IV
International comparisons of numbers of children
Note. A dash in a cell of the table signifies that the corresponding data item was not reported.
a
Burgess and Tharenou, unpublished manuscript.
b
Catalyst, 1993.
c
Burke, 1994.
d
Holton, Rabbetts, and Schrivener, 1993.
e
Pajo, McGregor, and Cleland, 1997.
f
Sample size estimated from method description.
behavior (Huse, 1998), and a need to tackle the Compliance and Non-compliance to Hegemonic
issues of theoretical models for the research Masculinity, in R. J. Burke and M. C. Mattis
(Burke and Mattis, 2000). (eds.), Women on Corporate Boards of Directors
Women have gained board seats but will (Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands),
remain a numerical minority for a long time into pp. 97109.
Burgess, Z. and P. Tharenou: 2000, What
the future (Bradshaw and Wicks, 2000). The
Distinguishes Women Non-executive Directors
boardroom is characterized as an old boys club from Executive Directors? Individual, Interpersonal
with selection based on homosocial reproduction and Organizational Factors Related to Womens
(Kanter, 1977) and self-cloning. Appointments to Boards, in R. J. Burke and
M. C. Mattis (eds.), Women on Corporate Boards
of Directors (Kluwer Academic Publishers, The
References Netherlands), pp. 7596.
Burke, R. J.: 1993, Women on Corporate Boards of
Across the Board: 1994, Gender Chill? September, 1. Directors, Equal Opportunities International 12, 6.
Bilimoria, D.: 2000, Building the Business Case for Burke, R. J.: 1994, Women on Corporate Boards of
Women Corporate Directors, in R. J. Burke and Directors: Views of Canadian Chief Executive
M. C. Mattis (eds.), Women on Corporate Boards Officers, Women in Management Review 9, 310.
of Directors (Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Burke, R. J.: 2000a, Women on Canadian Corporate
Netherlands), pp. 2540. Boards of Directors: Still a Long Way to Go, in
Bilimoria, D. and M. Huse: 1997, A Qualitative R. J. Burke and M. C. Mattis (eds.), Women on
Comparison of the Boardroom Experiences of Corporate Boards of Directors (Kluwer Academic
U.S. and Norwegian Women Corporate Directors, Publishers, The Netherlands), pp. 97109.
International Review of Women and Leadership 3(2), Burke, R. J.: 2000b, Company Size, Board Size and
6376. Numbers of Women Corporate Directors, in
Bilimoria, D. and S. K. Piderit: 1994, Board R. J. Burke and M. C. Mattis (eds.), Women on
Committee Membership: Effects of Sex-based Corporate Boards of Directors (Kluwer Academic
Bias, Academy of Management Journal 37, Publishers, The Netherlands), pp. 157167.
14531477. Burke, R. J.: 2000c, Women on Corporate Boards
Bradshaw, P., V. V. Murray and J. Wolpin: 1992, of Directors: Understanding the Context, in R.
Women on Boards of Nonprofit Organizations. Paper J. Burke and M. C. Mattis (eds.), Women on
Presented at ARNOVA Conference, October. Corporate Boards of Directors (Kluwer Academic
Bradshaw, P. and D. Wicks: 2000, The Experiences Publishers, The Netherlands), pp. 179196.
of White Women on Corporate Boards in Canada: Burke, R. J. and E. Kurucz: 1998, Demographic
48 Zena Burgess and Phyllis Tharenou
Characteristics of Canadian Women Corporate Harrigan, K. R.: 1981, Numbers and Positions of
Directors, Psychological Reports 83, 461462. Women Elected to Corporate Boards, Academy of
Burke, R. J. and C. A. McKeen: 1993, Career Management Journal 24, 619625.
Priority Patterns Among Managerial and Holton, V. D.: 1995, Women and Equal
Professional Women, Applied Psychology: An Opportunities: Creating a Level Playing Field,
International Review 42, 341352. Equal Opportunities 31, 904907.
Burke, R. J. and M. C. Mattis: 2000, Women Holton, V. D.: 2000, Taking a Seat on the Board:
Corporate Boards of Directors: Where Do We Go Women Directors in Britain, in R. J. Burke and
from Here?, in R. J. Burke and M. C. Mattis M. C. Mattis (eds.), Women on Corporate Boards of
(eds.), Women on Corporate Boards of Directors Directors (Kluwer Academic Publishers, The
(Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands), Netherlands), pp. 145155.
pp. 310. Holton, V. D., J. Rabbetts and S. Schrivener: 1993,
Burton, C. and C. Ryall: 1995, Enterprising Nation: Women on the Boards of Britains Top 200 Companies:
Reviewing Australias Managers to Meet the Challenges A Progress Report (Ashridge Management Research
of the Asia-Pacific Century: Managing for Diversity Group, Berkhamsted, England).
(Australian Government Publishing Service, Huse, M.: 1998, How Women Directors Challenge
Canberra). Existing Theories of Boards of Directors. Paper
Cassell, C.: 1997, The Business Case for Equal presented at the Academy of Management
Opportunities: Implications for Women in Conference, San Diego, CA.
Management, Women in Management Review 12, Ibarra, H.: 1993, Personal Networks of Women
1117. and Minorities in Management: A Conceptual
Catalyst: 1993, Women on Corporate Boards: The Framework, Academy of Management Review 18,
Challenge of Change (Catalyst, New York). 5787.
Catalyst: 1995a, The CEO View: Women on Corporate Ibrahim, N. A. and J. P. Angelidis: 1994, Effect of
Boards (Catalyst, New York). Board Members Gender on Corporate Social
Catalyst: 1995b, Catalyst Census Female Board Responsiveness Orientation, Journal of Applied
Directors of the Fortune 500 (Catalyst, New York). Business Research 10, 3540.
Catalyst: 1997, Women Board Directors of the Fortune Izraeli, D. N.: 2000, The Paradox of Affirmative
500 (Catalyst, New York). Action for Women Directors in Israel, in R. J.
Catalyst: 1998a, Women Now Hold over Ten Percent Burke and M. C. Mattis (eds.), Women on Corporate
of Fortune 500 Board Seats, Corporate Board 19, Boards of Directors (Kluwer Academic Publishers,
2729. The Netherlands), pp. 7596.
Catalyst: 1998b, Women Board Directors of Canada Kanter, R. M.: 1977, Men and Women of the
(Catalyst, New York). Corporation (Basic Books, New York).
Catalyst: 1998c, Women Board Directors of the Fortune Korn/Ferry International: 1997, Boards of Directors in
500 (Catalyst, New York). Australasia (1st ed.) (Korn/Ferry International,
Crain, R. and D. Snyder: 1998, Where are the Sydney).
Women? A Question for Big Business, Harvard Korn/Ferry International: 1998, Boards of Directors in
Business Review 56 (JanuaryFebruary), 7786. Australasia (2nd ed.) (Korn/Ferry International,
Daily, C. M., S. T. Certo and D. R. Dalton: 1999, Sydney).
A Decade of Corporate Women: Some Progress Korn/Ferry International: 1999, Boards of Directors
in the Boardroom, None in the Executive Suite, in Australia and New Zealand (Korn/Ferry
Strategic Management Journal 20, 9399. International, Sydney).
Fondas, N.: 2000, Women on Corporate Boards of Mattis, M. C.: 1997, Women on Corporate Boards:
Directors: Gender Bias or Power Threat, in R. J. Two Decades of Research, International Review of
Burke and M. C. Mattis (eds.), Women on Corporate Women and Leadership 3, 1125.
Boards of Directors (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Mattis, M. C.: 2000, Women Corporate Directors in
The Netherlands), pp. 171177. the United States, in R. J. Burke and M. C. Mattis
Green, E. and C. M. Cassell: 1996, Women (eds.), Women on Corporate Boards of Directors
Managers, Gendered Cultural Processes and (Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands),
Organizational Change, Gender, Work and pp. 4356.
Organizational 3, 3. McGregor, J.: 1997, Making the Good Woman
Women Board Directors: Characteristics of the Few 49
Visible: The Issue of Profile in New Zealand on the Boards of Public Companies, Corporate
Corporate Directorship, International Review of Governance (May), MCB Press.
Women and Leadership 3, 110. Shultz, S. F.: 1995, Women Directors The
McGregor, J.: 2000, The New Zealand Experiment Outmoded Myths, Directorship 21(6), 810.
Training to Be on a Board as a Director, in Stephenson, K. and S. Rakow: 1998, Female
R. J. Burke and M. C. Mattis (eds.), Women on Representation in U.S. Centralized Private Sector
Corporate Boards of Directors (Kluwer Academic Planning: The Case of Overlapping Directorships,
Publishers, The Netherlands), pp. 129144. Journal of Economic Issues 27, 459470.
Mitchell, M.: 1984, A Profile of the Canadian Sweetman, K. J.: 1996, Women in Boardrooms:
Woman Director, Business Quarterly (Spring), Increasing Numbers Qualify to Serve, Harvard
121127. Business Review 74, 13.
National Foundation of Women Business Owners: Talmud, I. and D. Izraeli: 1998, The Relationship
1996, Women-owned Businesses in the United States: between Gender and Performance Issues of
1996 Fact Sheet. concern to Directors: Correlates or Institution?,
Pajo, K., J. McGregor and J. Cleland: 1997, Profiling Journal of Organizational Behavior 20, 459474.
the Pioneers: Women Directors on New Zealands Thomas, R. R.: 1990, From Affirmative Action to
Corporate Boards, Women in Management Review Affirming Diversity, Harvard Business Review 68(2),
12, 174181. 107117.
Pollak, M.: 2000, Catalyst Corporate Board Vinnicombe, S., V. Singh and J. Sturges: 2000,
Placement: New Seats at the Table, in R. J. Burke Making it to the Top in Britain, in R. J. Burke
and M. C. Mattis (eds.), Women on Corporate Boards and M. C. Mattis (eds.), Women on Corporate Boards
of Directors (Kluwer Academic Publishers, The of Directors (Kluwer Academic Publishers, The
Netherlands), pp. 263269. Netherlands), pp. 5773.
Rosener, J. B.: 1990, Way Women Lead, Harvard
Business Review 68, 119125.
Selby, C. C.: 2000, From Male Locker Room to
Co-executive Director Boardroom: A Twenty-five Mail stop 22,
Year Perspective, in R. J. Burke and M. C. Mattis Swinburne University of Technology,
(eds.), Women on Corporate Boards of Directors John Street,
(Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands), Hawthorn 3122,
pp. 97109. Australia
Sheridan, A.: 2001, A View from the Top: Women E-mail: zburgess@swin.edu.au