smh businessday:

Top publicly listed companies that employ more women on their boards make more money, a new study shows, boosting the case for regulations that require big business to set policies to increase gender diversity.

The La Trobe Business School study, which coincides with International Women's Day, examined about 300 of Australia's top 500 listed companies between 2005 and 2011.

Called Board Diversity and Financial Performance in the Top 500 Australian Firms, its findings, which have been published previously in the Australian Accounting Review, represent further evidence of the positive impact increased board diversity is having on Australian companies' financial performance.

The study, by La Trobe Business School head Paul Mather and co-reserachers Dr Alireza Vafaei and Professor Kamran Ahmed, ruled out purely coincidental links between financial performance and women on boards.

"What the study clearly shows is that it's women on boards affecting performance and it's not that better-employing firms are simply employing more women," Professor Mather said.

Workplace Gender Equality Agency data shows women accounted for 43 per cent of new appointments to ASX 200 boards in January 2016. 

But the balance is still far from equal, because 12 per cent of the ASX 200 still do not have a woman on their board.

It's not just boards that are lacking in female representation. Of the 3745 organisations that have key management personnel, 25.1 per cent do not have female staff at that level.

Another study by leadership mentoring firm Mind Group looked at the lack of female chief executives and found that stereotypes about what a chief executive looks like are entrenched. It asked 100 working Australians – half male and half female – aged between 23 and 72 from different industries and organisations what an Australian chief executive looks like.

The result was that 97 per cent pictured a middle-aged male, while only 3 per cent pictured a middle-aged female. Furthermore, 99 per cent pictured their typical chief executive as "white" or "caucasian".

Professor Mather said while firms still had trouble finding women for key roles, more diverse boards resulted in different perspectives that helped produce better decisions. "Aside from the social justice issues, it makes economic sense," he said. 

The motivation for the study followed amendments made to ASX Corporate Governance Principles that require companies to set policies for increasing board diversity.

Since 2011, Australia's top companies have been benchmarking their practices against the ASX recommendations, and if they don't they have to disclose their reasons. The study found that this in itself had led to more women moving on to boards.

But the study was not pushing the case for mandatory quotas. "That's a whole different policy argument," Professor Mather said. "We're simply saying that having more women on boards adds economic value. And how we achieve that, whether it's more of the same policies or by taking a broader route, is a separate debate."

The La Trobe study findings do not apply to smaller companies. Mr Mather said future work could investigate the effect of board diversity and its interaction with various factors such as tenure and expertise on firm performance.

This is not the first time research has shown more women equals more profit. Companies with gender-diverse boards performed an average of 2 per cent better a year than ASX 200 companies, previous Centre for Gender Economics and Innovation and Infinitas Asset Management research found, and more than 7 per cent better a year than companies with no women on their boards.

I'll leave the room now and make space for the misogynists.
It's like a knife in the groin to say it but maybe Julia Gillard was right.

Really? You putting yourself above others?

If it walks like a duck

Do you like to be fed bread or grain?

Here's a study that says large corporations who have put more women on their boards are performing better than those who don't.

Does this not fit in with your view of how things should be arranged between men & women?

Women tend to have an easier time forming relationships.
They tend to be more fluid in relationships.
They (if they are feminine) tend to be very nurturing.
They also tend to be better at verbal communication skills.


All of these skills are very useful to a business, especially the types of businesses we now see which tend to be more about networking, creativity and marketing skills (ie , they are very reliant on relationships and communication).

So, yes, they are welcome on boards .

Not as the commander in chief though Boges.
Not as the CEO.
Strong masculine grounded icey resilient, unflinching qualities are required for that position.

Think of them as perfect for the "best supporting actress' award

bogarde73 wrote on Mar 8^th, 2016 at 8:45am:

smh businessday: Top publicly listed companies that employ more women on their boards make more money, a new study shows, boosting the case for regulations that require big business to set policies to increase gender diversity.

Yes, private companies must be forced to improve their profitability, because they obviously have no interest in increasing their profits voluntarily.

bogarde73 wrote on Mar 8^th, 2016 at 9:40am:

Here's a study that says large corporations who have put more women on their boards are performing better than those who don't. Does this not fit in with your view of how things should be arranged between men & women?

And I am guessing there are other studies that conclude the exact opposite. I find it inconceivable that one gender is better at being CEO than another. I find it offensive that in the search for equality, the goal seems to be actually the very opposite, ie the supremacy of women. Would there be a report published that said men made better executives? Of course not. It isn't the 'done thing', even though who knows, it may even be true.

The thing I find offensive (and laughable) about the feminist and womens equality movement is that it is fundamentally a lie. It does not seek equality at all, but rather supremacy and therefore setting the scene for the inevitable backlash from men when they finally tire of being overlooked simply for being men.

What happened to promotion by virtue of performance?

mariacostel wrote on Mar 8^th, 2016 at 11:16am:

bogarde73 wrote on Mar 8th, 2016 at 9:40am: Here's a study that says large corporations who have put more women on their boards are performing better than those who don't. Does this not fit in with your view of how things should be arranged between men & women? And I am guessing there are other studies that conclude the exact opposite.

So post them up for comment.


Quote:

I find it inconceivable that one gender is better at being CEO than another.

The study wasnt about being a CEO, it was about being a board member.


Quote:

I find it offensive that in the search for equality, the goal seems to be actually the very opposite, ie the supremacy of women.

Im ok with this. Men have basically run the world for all of recorded history, and look where we are. We are cooking the planet, income inequality has never been higher, social cohesion is coming undone. Maybe its time women had a shot. Cant do any worse.


Quote:

The thing I find offensive (and laughable) about the feminist and womens equality movement is that it is fundamentally a lie. It does not seek equality at all, but rather supremacy and therefore setting the scene for the inevitable backlash from men when they finally tire of being overlooked simply for being men.

Cite your sources. Proof your point. Backup your argument with facts, rather than gut feelings that you think are correct, because as was established earlier, you can very very fallible.


Quote:

What happened to promotion by virtue of performance?

It still happens. Its just that executive level positions are largely determined by males, and they tend to give the job to other males.

donincognito wrote on Mar 8^th, 2016 at 11:28am:

mariacostel wrote on Mar 8th, 2016 at 11:16am: bogarde73 wrote on Mar 8th, 2016 at 9:40am: Here's a study that says large corporations who have put more women on their boards are performing better than those who don't. Does this not fit in with your view of how things should be arranged between men & women? And I am guessing there are other studies that conclude the exact opposite. So post them up for comment. Quote: I find it inconceivable that one gender is better at being CEO than another. The study wasnt about being a CEO, it was about being a board member. [quote] I find it offensive that in the search for equality, the goal seems to be actually the very opposite, ie the supremacy of women.

Im ok with this. Men have basically run the world for all of recorded history, and look where we are. We are cooking the planet, income inequality has never been higher, social cohesion is coming undone. Maybe its time women had a shot. Cant do any worse.


Quote:

The thing I find offensive (and laughable) about the feminist and womens equality movement is that it is fundamentally a lie. It does not seek equality at all, but rather supremacy and therefore setting the scene for the inevitable backlash from men when they finally tire of being overlooked simply for being men.

Cite your sources. Proof your point. Backup your argument with facts, rather than gut feelings that you think are correct, because as was established earlier, you can very very fallible.


Quote:

What happened to promotion by virtue of performance?

It still happens. Its just that executive level positions are largely determined by males, and they tend to give the job to other males.
[/quote]


Talk about destroying your own argument!  THANKS FOR PLAYING!

donincognito wrote on Mar 8^th, 2016 at 11:28am:

Men have basically run the world for all of recorded history, and look where we are.

Yes, we've come a long way - from short, brutish existences in caves to a life of technologically-enabled luxury, where the worst thing one can imagine is having an imperfect split in the gender of board members.  What a mess eh?


Quote:

income inequality has never been higher, social cohesion is coming undone.

Which funnily enough, tracks along the same path as the rise of feminist garbage. 

Destroying your own argument indeed. 

Yes, I've noticed that the inclusion of women on the boards of BHP, Ford and GM has been a great boon..... though someone has yet to clearly delineate HOW having women on boards actually raises profits.. in isolation.  Could be that the company is simply going through a good time.... will these studies be repeated when things get bad?  What will be the justification then?

I'd say that the profitability or otherwise of a company is more on who is on the board rather than what gender they are.....

I'm with Honky... millions can't put the noodles on the table.. and we have the luxury to discuss a few women on boards....

Flawed premise, all; thats happening is that these companies are opening themselves up to more qualifed and younger applicants  for these positions by deliberatly including females. Now if they deliberatly included everyone who was qualified rather than base promotion on who they knew, the gender  imbalance would still be there.

Sure increases my profitability....

http://comps.canstockphoto.com/can-stock-photo_csp3139369.jpg

Here's another one that fills the bill:

Dear Sir/Madam,
APPOINTMENT OF DEBRA SINGH AS GROUP CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO) RETAIL
The Board of Fantastic Holdings Ltd (ASX: FAN, ‘Fantastic Holdings’, or ‘the Company’) is pleased to announce the appointment of Ms Debra Singh as Group CEO Retail, effective 30 March 2016.
Ms Singh has been the driving force behind the growth of the Fantastic Furniture retail brand since her appointment as CEO Fantastic Furniture in August 2014. Prior to this, Ms Singh as Chief Operating Officer had oversight of Fantastic Holdings’ other retail brands: Plush, Original Mattress Factory, Le Cornu and Dare Gallery.
Ms Singh will continue to lead Fantastic Furniture, as her leadership team takes over day to day management of this business, and in addition she will assume responsibility for Plush, Original Mattress Factory and Le Cornu. Ms Singh will also be responsible, as Group CEO Retail, for seeking and assessing further retail growth opportunities.
Ms Singh has over 30 years of extensive experience in retail operations, organisational design, human resources and change management.

bogarde73 wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 9:03am:

Here's another one that fills the bill: Dear Sir/Madam, APPOINTMENT OF DEBRA SINGH AS GROUP CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO) RETAIL The Board of Fantastic Holdings Ltd (ASX: FAN, ‘Fantastic Holdings’, or ‘the Company’) is pleased to announce the appointment of Ms Debra Singh as Group CEO Retail, effective 30 March 2016. Ms Singh has been the driving force behind the growth of the Fantastic Furniture retail brand since her appointment as CEO Fantastic Furniture in August 2014. Prior to this, Ms Singh as Chief Operating Officer had oversight of Fantastic Holdings’ other retail brands: Plush, Original Mattress Factory, Le Cornu and Dare Gallery. Ms Singh will continue to lead Fantastic Furniture, as her leadership team takes over day to day management of this business, and in addition she will assume responsibility for Plush, Original Mattress Factory and Le Cornu. Ms Singh will also be responsible, as Group CEO Retail, for seeking and assessing further retail growth opportunities. Ms Singh has over 30 years of extensive experience in retail operations, organisational design, human resources and change management.

Brilliant - so this automatically means that because she's a woman, that is the entire reason for her success, and that nobody else of any other persuasion could do as well?

You do see where I'm going, don't you?  Despite all the accusations flung my way, I'm the one saying it makes not one iota of difference who it is - as long as it works for the company.. but then, that's what happens when you are forced to discuss realities with ideologues.

She's done well, but it's not a lone wolf effort by any stretch of the imagination and involves a massive input from many people... and besides, the broad canvas on which she paints was built by men anyway.

I guess far too many of you are locked into the demagogue concept... the Fuhrerprinzip.. that dictates to small minds that the titular head is the creator of all success.... and The Team has nothing to do with it.... that's why fools often vote for parties.. on a cult of personality.....

No wonder we're lagging so far behind reality as a country.....