On September
20, 2018, Senate Bill (SB) 826 was signed into California
law by Governor Jerry Brown. SB
826, which was introduced by Senators Jackson, Atkins
and Leyva mandates that each publicly held company that is headquartered in
California must have at least one female member on its board of directors by
December 31, 2019. It also requires that if a corporation has six or more
directors, then a minimum of three must be female, and if there are five
directors, then a minimum of two must be female by December 31, 2021.
If a
company doesn’t comply then they could be looking at a $100,000 to $300,000
fine. Similar diversity-focused laws have been proposed with mixed reactions,
some questioning the ethics of such a law. SB 826 will have a huge impact on
California corporations, including Facebook, Apple, and Adobe. The law will also
affect over 400
other California-headquartered companies, a quarter of which
don’t have any female board directors. It is important
to understand the research and reasoning backing up a policy that is requiring
such as change, as well as why it may not work the way its creators had
intended.
SB 826 states that having more women on a
board of directors will create a better, more profitable company. The bill cites
research done in 2016
by McKinsey & Company that showed corporations with female
directors tend to outperform those that don’t. Specifically, the research
showed that “corporations where women are strongly represented at board or
top-management levels are also businesses that perform the best, in
profitability, productivity, innovation, governance, better performance and
workplace engagement.”
Additional research found that only 15.5% of the board
seats of Californian companies were held by women. This is below the national
average; 16.2% of Russell 3000 board seats and 19.9% of Fortune 1000 board
seats are held by women.
To Senators Jackson, Atkins and Leyva this is not
enough. The summary
of the bill states, “California is the 5th
largest economy in the world and, as such, sets an example for responsible
businesses globally. Therefore, California has a responsibility to ensure that
women are included in the discussions and decisions that affect corporate
actions and profitability.” This bill is not just about increasing the
profitability of a company, though it may be framed that way. Truthfully, this
bill is about sending a message about the worth of women, and the pursuit of
equality.
The intent behind this bill is a step in a positive direction. However, other studies show this bill may not give much more voice to corporate women. The
most important phrase from the results of the McKinsey & Company study is
“corporations where women are strongly represented.” It is not enough
for women to simply be represented by a few or even a single female director.
A study done by Tali Mendelberg, Christopher Karpowitz, and J.
Baxter Oliphant looked at the experiences of women during deliberation.
Deliberation refers to making a decision through discourse where options are
discussed among multiple people. Their study focused on how often women spoke
and how often they were interrupted during two types of deliberation: majority
rule, where the greater number exercises the greater power, and consensus,
where the whole group must agree.
The experiment had varying numbers of women
in a group, from 0-5, for each type of deliberation. The study found that
within consensus decision making, the women spoke as much as the men regardless
of how many women there were. However, majority rule deliberation had more
negative results. Overall, women were frequently negatively interrupted,
meaning a man would talk over the woman to steal the floor. Women don’t speak
as often when they are the minority and they don’t often speak on the topics
they want to. In fact, it wasn’t until there were 4 women in the group of 5
that the women spoke as much as the single man.
Ultimately, the study found
that the worst condition for women’s participation and influence is the one
most prevalent in the world—majority rule with few women. This is the
deliberation condition that will be found on the board of directors for these
companies; meaning that a woman’s voice may still not be heard despite having
women on the board.
SB 826 was passed in the hopes of not only creating more productive companies but in creating a vision of a society where a woman's voice is as important as a man's. Hopefully, we can reach a point where that doesn't have to be mandated by the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment