It seems straightforward: when there isn’t an equal number of women in the workplace, surely the simplest solution is to just add more. This strategy has the added advantage of being a one-size-fits-all solution to the pervasive problem of women’s inequality in multiple industries.
But what if this measure is misguided, perhaps even a form of “fig-leaf feminism” designed to cover up the underlying persistence of “business as usual”?
We did some research on the impact of the appointment of women to the boards of ASX200 companies. And the story isn’t as clear-cut as “just add women and stir”.
Our research into Australia’s corporate board networks shows that the number of women board members is only one part of the equation when it comes to achieving corporate diversity and equality.
We used social network analysis to assess appointments to ASX200 company boards between 2015-2018. This period is celebrated for successfully increasing the number of ASX200 board seats held by women from 20% to 30%. We examined the relationships of more than 2300 board directors, mapping their connections to other directors when they sat on the same boards.
Typically, gender equity achievements are verified by adding up the total number of women in corporate board networks — the “headcounts”. We looked instead at where men and women were located in the networks, specifically at how centrally positioned they were in relation to their immediate connections and more broadly across the entire ASX board network. Network centrality is a proxy for understanding influence: the more central your position, the more powerful you are.
We found something unexpected. As the number of women board members increased and the number of men declined, we did not see a corresponding decline in men’s centrality. In other words, despite fewer men, their capacity to exert influence over other board members barely budged — and against some measures it actually improved.
Increasing the number of women on boards had resulted in a smaller number of men holding relatively greater power.
The implications of these findings have repercussions beyond the boardroom. Setting statistical ambitions as the only strategy for producing equality is not enough.
Is this an argument against quotas and soft targets? Absolutely not.
Our research does suggest, however, that a rethink is needed at multiple levels. Board appointment processes need systemic reform to ensure that substantive and not just statistical equity and diversity occurs. And once women are appointed, in order for corporate firms to be held properly accountable to equality, diversity and inclusion aspirations, we need to move beyond simple headcounts to more meaningful measures of power and influence.
