The language, vocabulary, and form of communication used by the media create a social image of the representatives—and also the reality—of businesses and firms. When a firm chooses to recruit new directors, board members unconsciously harbor biases that can have a direct, negative impact on the selection and subsequent promotion of female candidates. This possibility should prompt corporate governance representatives, business leaders, and institutions to consider not only the potential biases in the selection process but also the ways in which these biases could affect the board’s decisions and, consequently, the company’s strategy.
As a formula for dismantling the traditional image of the all-male board of directors, it has become necessary to emphasize the most typical characteristics of women and the ways in which these characteristics can complement and improve the board’s decision-making and performance. However, by considering women to be different from men but similar to each other from the outset, we run the risk of treating women as a homogenous group—different from men—in terms of their professional experience and personality traits, and this, conversely, could hamper their future prospects. If these complimentary characteristics are perceived as the weakest link in an organization, the stereotype—whether male or female—makes it difficult for people to assert their individual characteristics.
The positive influence of female board members stems not only from the women’s individual performance but also from the resulting change in the board’s dynamics, which in turn has a positive effect on the firm’s image.
On the one hand, it could be the case that women, responding to a standardized image presented by the media, tend to adopt managerial styles that are more typical of men when working in male-dominated environments. On the other hand, the homogenization of female characteristics by the media can force women to meet the expectations created for their “group,” which are based on generic female attributes such as maternal qualities or external appearances and in many cases conflict with their personal professional expertise. The classification of women within such specific parameters reduces the number of potential female candidates for boards of directors, leading to only a small number of women holding a seat and thus a position of power on the board.
Conversely, if the image of female executives focuses on professional attributes—as is the case with men—it will become clear that this group is just as diverse as their male colleagues and the number of female candidates will increase by attracting talent. The appointment of new directors, both male and female, with an eye to fostering a diverse range of talent, knowledge, and experience will produce the diversity firms seek in their quest for better decision-making.
Recent research has analyzed, from various perspectives, the impact of female board members on firms’ profitability and financial performance. Various lines of investigation have found that female board members have a positive influence. This stems not only from the women’s individual performance but also from the resulting change in the board’s dynamics, which in turn has a positive effect on the firm’s image. Nowadays, thanks to gender quotas, many companies are under pressure to appoint female executives or board members. Selection for the purposes of seeking a diversity of talent and experience is the key to creating more dynamic and assured boards.
Nowadays, thanks to gender quotas, many companies are under pressure to appoint female board members.
Stereotypes
The media have helped women earn their place on executive committees by challenging society’s preconceived image that all boards of directors are made up of men and by opening up these groups to a greater female presence. However, they have also formed an image of female board members as a group that shares common characteristics, thereby continuing to reinforce a female archetype.
To paraphrase Makhlouf, when common perceptions become stereotypes, it leads to prejudice, confining the members of a community and limiting them to a set of specific and rigid criteria. This situation is particularly delicate when it comes to female representation on boards of directors, since women have gained access to important positions in a short period of time and the image that they now embody will significantly affect the selection of new female board members in the future.
In recent years, due to the growing importance of gender diversification in the upper echelons of firms, a woman’s appointment to a board of directors has generated a lot of media coverage. In some ways, the media have the power to create shared frameworks that define—or not—the characteristics of typical female board members. The media have the power to enhance women’s professional attributes and their perception as corporate leaders. A diverse focus on the part of the media would be a boon to the corporate reputation of firms in the medium term.
Firms with female board members tend to gain legitimacy amongst working women and attract more female talent.
Articles published after the appointment of a female board member often emphasize gender-related skills beyond organizational considerations—something that does not happen when male board members are appointed. A clear example is the promotion of Theresa Gattung to CEO of Telecom New Zealand. Coverage of the appointment devalued Gattung’s new position on the basis of her age and gender. Questions were also raised about Gattung’s marital status and her intention to have children, as well as other trivial matters that do not usually arise when male executives are interviewed. The media frequently rely on gender stereotypes when women take on high-profile jobs, even though similar factors form part of the profile of male executives. The example of Theresa Gattung illustrates the generalized ambivalence about women in leadership positions, brought about by the perceived differences between the requirements for executive positions and the personal attributes of women.
On this point, female directors themselves need to be more aware of their influence on other women and develop a discourse about themselves in the media in which they emphasize their individual and professional qualities rather than discussing their career in traditional terms.
Greater visibility for women as board members can have positive effects that help change the image of corporate leaders.
Gaining access to the board of directors
By dismantling female stereotypes, the appointment of more female board members can have other positive effects, such as improving the company’s reputation, providing greater access to female talent, new resources, and a better understanding of the demands and realities of women’s lives, not to mention the creation of different reference models for other working women. Diversifying the portrayal of women can have a positive influence on a corporation’s image and increase its talent pool by attracting a greater variety of women, while also creating different profiles and models of behavior amongst women that will be widely sought and will ensure that women contribute their unique vision to the firm.
The appointment of female directors has a symbolic value both internally and externally. Firms with female board members tend to gain legitimacy amongst working women and potential new recruits, as they are seen as employers that protect women with professional careers and have helped in the advancement of both men and women. According to Carroll & McCombs, the presence of women on the board of directors conveys that sexual discrimination does not exist in the firm, thereby helping to attract competent candidates and improving the public’s opinion of the company.
When a woman becomes a member of a board of directors, she must overcome a second hurdle, which is not to succumb to a traditionally female role. Motowidlo suggests that, when searching for a candidate for a role, those who make the final decision may do so in an unconsciously skewed manner, opting for someone who reflects their image of a stereotypically ideal candidate. This idea, which is part of the theory of social identity, illustrates individuals’ tendency to surround themselves with people who share similar demographic profiles. In the long run, this translates into points of view and values that are beneficial to both intra-group communication and decision-making processes.
The current sociodemographic profile of a female board member is that of someone younger than her executive body colleagues, and likely with less experience, but with a higher level of education.
Because the stereotype is built around familiarity with members of an already successful board, if the current board is majority-male, the selection committee will undoubtedly have a male candidate in mind. Women, therefore, will not have the same opportunities to earn a spot on the board until the number of female executives is so large that this stereotype begins to change. The more visibility these women have, the faster the preconceived images of board members—and society in general—will change.
Greater visibility for women as board members can also have other positive effects that help change the image of corporate leaders. According to Burgess and Tharenou, as well as Peterson and Philpot, the current sociodemographic profile of a female board member is that of someone younger than her executive body colleagues, and likely with less experience, but with a higher level of education.
© IE Insights.
