A woman’s place is in the boardroom

As Australia’s top companies come to terms with new rules requiring them to publish figures on the number of female staff in senior positions, less than 10 per cent of their board seats are taken by women. But with continuing opposition to quotas, will the ‘if not, why not’ approach deliver the upturn a generation of women has been waiting for?

By AMY FARAG

To her kids, Lisa Gazis is just “Mumma”. Little do they know that she is one of Australia’s leading businesswomen. Ms Gazis worked her way up for 22 years to become the managing director of Mahlab recruitment. She provides strategic consulting services to corporations and law firms in Australia and abroad. Ms Gazis is adamant that nothing would hinder the success of her career, not even her children.

“I had my mother give up her career to ensure I was able to continue mine. My family and the people around me bought into my vision and helped me to reach the position I am currently in,” she said.

Women make up more than half the population, but they represent only 9.5 per cent of the seats in the boardrooms of the top 500 companies on the Australian stock exchange.

This year, for the first time, many of Australia’s largest companies have published figures on the proportion of women in senior positions, in a rush to comply with new Australian stock exchange corporate governance laws.

The ‘if not, why not’ policy of regulation set by the ASX and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission requires companies to explain to their shareholders what they have done to place more women into senior positions, and if not, why not. Through this policy, companies are being shamed into placing women into senior positions.

The move follows international recognition for Norway’s pioneering legislative work to promote gender equality on boards. Laws passed in Norway in 2002 made it mandatory for larger Norwegian companies to have at least 40 per cent of each sex on their boards.

Following the introduction of that legislation, women’s representation on boards rose from seven per cent in 2003 to 40.3 per cent in 2010. In Australia, following the ASX ‘if not, why not’ requirement, women comprised 27 per cent of all new board appointments in 2010, up from just five per cent the previous year.

Though the changes made in Norway seem to indicate that quotas can make a difference, Ms Gazis is among those who do not agree with the idea.

“Quotas are a form of tokenism,” she says. “If we have strong successful women able to change an organisation, we shouldn’t need them.

“Companies who were subject to quotas in Norway were forced to fill positions. Consequently they didn’t perform as well because they were merely fulfilling the quotas.”

Researchers from Melbourne Business School’s Centre for Ethical Leadership Jennifer Whelan and Robert Wood conducted a three-year study into gender equality. Their report suggests that in some cases when women are hired under positive discrimination, colleagues believe they are “less qualified and less competent”.

Ms Gazis agrees. “We have a Gail Kelly, we have a Julia Gillard. Things are changing and they are providing everyone with an example to follow.

“By having women in leadership, we can change the culture in a company from the top down. Quotas are anti-meritocratic.”

Most large banks and professional service firms in Australia have already achieved significant targets for women in senior positions. In September last year, ANZ achieved its target of having 40 per cent female managers and Woolworths aims to have 33 per cent women at executive level by 2015. CBA also announced targets to increase the number of women in executive management roles to 35 per cent by 2014.

But despite these efforts Ms Gazis says that the underlying problem that holds women back is unconscious sexism.

“There are a lot of women who have broken through the glass ceiling, but there is still a long way to go,” she says. “I’d be horrified to hear that intentional sexism still exists.”

Instead she suggests the difficulty is how men network – to the exclusion of women.

“For example, in investment banking, deals are done at rugby games where women can’t participate.

“The gender imbalance will continue until we have more women in senior positions. Shaming companies into allocating more women on boards is a start, but it is not a practical approach. ”

Claire Braund, director of Women on Boards, a company that aims to improve the gender balance on Australian boards says that gender diverse boards are “integral to better financial performance and improved governance”.

The Reibey Institute, an independent, not-for-profit research centre which explores women’s leadership issues, found that over a five year period, ASX-500 companies with female directors delivered significantly higher returns on equity (8.7 per cent), than those companies without any women on their boards.

And in a 2009 report by Tim Toohey, the chief economist at Goldman Sachs JBWere, it was suggested that closing the gap between male and female employment rates would boost the level of Australian GDP by 11 per cent.

“Despite this overwhelming evidence that having women on boards is good for business, Australia has been slow to act,” says Ms Braund.

“The dynamics of the discussion in the boardroom and the quality of discussion is heightened when women are present.

“Boards with women are more likely to be best-practice in terms of board evaluations, codes of conduct, conflict. And research has demonstrated a link between a company’s performance and the proportion of women serving in its governing body.”

Ms Gazis suggested that because women are key consumers, “they can bring a vast knowledge to any boardroom table”.

“They have a different way of thinking and provide balance to a board with a balanced view,” she says.

When given the opportunity, she believes, “there is nothing stopping them”. And getting that opportunity is becoming more common in Australia, even if there is still a long way to go.