It's the year of the women at the Olympic games: Bob Costas made it official last night when he wrapped up another day of American women taking the medal stand: women now make up a slight majority of the U.S. Olympic team, and in medal count they are outperforming men in most categories. Track and field, volleyball, soccer, rowing, gymnastics, basketball, tennis and swimming -- women make headlines, command prime time coverage, and come up smiling.
Was not always thus. The change over the last decades is remarkable.
Success has a thousand fathers and Olympic coverage keeps us entertained with feel-good stories of how hard these women (and men) have worked, and the extraordinary sacrifices made by their parents, coaches and role models. But let's give credit where credit is due: the real parent is the law passed by Congress in 1972, now known as Title IX of the Educational Amendments Act, which forced colleges to create equal opportunity for women athletes.
I think we need a Title IX for Boards of Directors.
Last month, the business group CED issued an urgent plea for increasing representation of women on corporate boards. The blue chip panel wrapped its message in God, Flag, and U.S. Competitiveness. But the organization pulled its punches when it comes to getting the job done. Rather than call for a clear test, like the Title IX equivalent of equal expenditures, we are left with the hope that enlightened boards will lead the parade. Meanwhile, we are being beat to a pulp by our competitors -- France and Norway, among others, require boards to step up their game. To make their numbers, corporations in these countries have begun to poach the U.S. field of experienced, board-ready women. It's a little like American women moving from California to Rio to get a chance at beach volleyball.
Ironically, choosing members for boards, unlike sports, can be an idiosyncratic process, or even a bit mysterious, with no clear standard. Merit? There is no clear definition of what boards do, and no performance test. One curious fact borne in research is that until you have three women, you might as well not have any. But when you make the plunge, the results accrue to the bottom line.
Last week, a new study issued by Credit Suisse examined the financial performance of 2,360 companies across the globe. The upshot is that companies with women Directors outperform -- they deliver high average returns on equity, better growth and better multiples.
There is nothing in these findings that will move the ball -- the Credit Suisse report is intriguing but hardly a comprehensive study of what makes for effective governance. But what's the harm if we err on the side of moving more quickly? The CED report documents the lack of change in recent years -- why not force the issue through a real test -- like a minimum of three women per board as a listing standard? There are strong head winds in business and a need to understand complex social and market forces to stay sharp. It's common sense today: diversity of perspective in business is a competitive strength.
I was in high school when Title IX passed and in college when the rules were issued. Back then, cheerleading was the best outlet for women seeking teammates. Title IX took women off the sidelines and we are the better for it. Let's do the same for American business. We will not regret it.
Follow Judith Samuelson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JudySamuelson
Liz Campbell: Why Aren't There More Women on Boards?
| 1 | United States | 46 | 29 | 29 |
| 2 | China | 38 | 27 | 23 |
| 3 | Russia | 24 | 26 | 32 |
| 4 | Great Britain | 29 | 17 | 19 |
| 5 | Germany | 11 | 19 | 14 |
| 6 | Japan | 7 | 14 | 17 |
However, this type of correction cannot be forced upon a free market where quite often publicly-owned companies do not receive any taxpayer money directly...
I want to see an equal number of men and women on college campuses and collecting garbage, in boardrooms and serving on the front line, in STEM classes and in prison.
Women are just asking for the good stuff, that's not fair! Let's even things up for real!
# of sucessfull companies created by men in a year vs
# of sucessfull companies created by women in a year
If both numbers are equal there is no difference.
If any of both numbers is higher, that is the gender that is the best manager.
What do you think?
When you strip away all of the bluster, what is left of the tired remnants of feminism, it's always about quotas.
Companies should be free to hire the people that they feel will best serve them...REGARDLESS of their genitals.
And no, we don't need another title IX for boards. In fact, we need to review how Title IX has been implemented.
Hell, if they could just review title IX honestly when discussing it, it would be a huge start. But instead of doing that, they often just claim it's all good because it has accomplished what they wanted, and the possibility it has had any negative, detrimental effects aren't worth acknowledging.
I agree with you that it's severe shortcomings (like de facto quota systems) have hurt both men and women's sports whereas societal changes in attitudes about women and sport probably account for most of the sea changes.
In other words, her world record time isn't fast enough to even qualify if she were a dude.
"Almost all of the outperformance in our
backtest was delivered post-2008, since the
macro environment deteriorated and volatility
increased."
The report aggregates results over all industries even though some sectors have different performance characteristics. Sectors have substantially different boards by gender. In health care about three quarters of boards have a woman. Where as it's less than half for information technology. Credit Suisse writes:
"Sectors that are closer to final consumer
demand have a higher proportion of women on
the board. Sectors closer to the bottom of the
supply chain tend to have a much lower
proportion of women on the board."
A comparison of total returns for last ten years for:
information technology: 7.37%
healthcare: 5.01%
http://www.sectorspdr.com/shared/pdf/SPDR-Periodic-Table-web.pdf
Depending on sector, one could be better off investing in an industry with a preference for male boards.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1503/socialism_s_trojan_horse_improved_gender_diversity_in_the_boardroom
Does anyone in this day and age think women cannot compete with men intellectually? Only if you believe this would you want Title IX for business.
No.
Both men and women enjoy sports. The problem was that men were being given financial and logistical support to play sports while women were being forbidden from playing.
This isn't simply "nature". it's not like women were allowed to try out for teams but didn't make the cut. ***We weren't even permitted to try out***. At the college level you can brush this off but prior to the teen years there are no gender differences in strength/speed so little girls are just as capable of joining little leagues as little boys.
But they weren't allowed to even try out.
Even today most girls and boys teams are gender segregated for absolutely no reason based in "nature". The limit is cultural, not physical. Nurture. Not Nature.
An Example:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/11/baseball-final-forfeited-because-of-girl-at-second-base/
Are you suggesting this is the case in boardrooms? That women aren't even allowed to apply for those positions? Do you have any ACTUAL proof for this?
"Even today most girls and boys teams are gender segregated for absolutely no reason based in "nature". The limit is cultural, not physical. Nurture. Not Nature. "
Compare the times of the female gold medalists in timed events (like rowing or track and field) to the men's times for the same sport, and then come back and tell me that nature plays no part in it. Just as an example, if we look at the women's 100m gold medal winner, FRASER-PRYCE Shelly-Ann time of 10.75, we see that, had she competed with the men, she would have come in at 8TH place. You people that choose to deny sex differences when it suits you (differences in sports performance is cultural, not nature) annoy me to no end. The truth is, if boys and girls teams weren't segregated, women WOULD lose out to the merit of boys
They will tell you that women are smarter while insisting they need extra help.
Given what Title IX has done and continues to do to mens sports programs I think REFORMING title ix is what we should do, not expanding it even more (which nobama plans on doing in early 2013 with the STEM programs).
There are strength based jobs that pay very well and they will always be held entirely by men. Since men have more *options* to make a good living than pursuing higher education then it is to be expected that fewer will.
Given the staggering increase in college costs with the stagnation of wages, college is no longer a slam dunk obvious path.
Your son can go into a trade and between working a few extra years and saving on tuition and student loan interest probably be better off...
Your daughter probably does not have a similar option (besides the sex industry or waiting at an insanely expensive restaurant).