Women on Board?
Canadian and American women dominate the ice— but not the boardroom.
Our new Canadian Census reveals that women make up 47% of the labor force in Canada, but only 14% of board directors in FP500 companies. In the United States, the numbers are also low. Women comprise 47% of the U.S. labor force, but occupy just 15% of the board seats. What’s worse, these numbers have remained virtually unchanged the last few years.
You may think board directors are so high in the org-chart stratosphere that they couldn’t possibly affect you or your job path. But they do. That’s why it’s important to look for diversity when deciding where to work.
The boardroom sets the tone for the organization. The more women on a corporate board, the higher the percentage— five years later— of women in senior positions, especially senior line positions.
Companies with more women board directors, on average, financially outperform those with the fewest. In fact, the more women on board, the better the performance. And companies with three or more women on their boards, on average, perform even better! Chances are that these more successful companies afford women greater opportunity for advancement and development.
So when you are looking for a job, first check that annual report. Skip the pretty pictures, and head for the board listing. If it doesn’t include at least one woman— and preferably three or more—your odds of developing a satisfying career and rising to leadership have just taken a serious hit.
Choose an organization that invests in women. Vote with your feet.
Tags: boardroom, bottom line, Canadian Census, ice hockey, US Census
This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010 at 12:05 am and is filed under Census, Glass Ceiling. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 8th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
I fully support that there should be an equal ratio of women:men in the workplace to the same ratio in the economic labor force. However, I find your numbers misleading. While there is a correlation in your stats, there is not necessarily a causation. Perhaps a segmentation of positions in the labor force can shed some light on this.
For example, a woman may not be willing to put more than 8 hours a day due to different circumstances. As simple as trying to find some more time for her children. This tells us that the career time span may be shorter than that of a man, and therefore, will not make it to the board. So you really cannot compare the number of women in the labor force to those sitting in the board of directors. However, the absence of women in boards does set the tone of the organization.
March 9th, 2010 at 10:48 am
Thank you for your comment Miguel.
I agree that the board sets the tone for the organization— this is why we need to get more women on board in the first place! One quick note: Labor force analyses used by Catalyst control for part-time work and there are still unexplained gaps that can only be attributed to bias. For example, in our recent study, “Pipeline’s Broken Promise,” we controlled for parenthood and found gaps even when no children were in the picture. In a true meritocracy, good talent would rise to the top. Because it often does not—as evidenced by corporate leadership and pay gap statistics— this means something is interfering. The evidence suggests gender-based stereotypes are getting in the way.