Earlier
in the week, I was preparing to write something for Medium, before discovering
this Open University online blog space. While I was still drafting the blog, I
ran into an old friend of mine who shared an interesting read by Michael O'Dwyer from
the Financial Times. I was somewhat concerned, as concerned as she
was. Not only about the findings of the survey but about the decision-making
processes that must have been taken to arrive at this clearly egregious course of
action. What course of action am I referring to?
I am referring
to a preference to hire those with senior-level experience over candidates with diverse backgrounds. This is something I will refer
to as an anti-diversity challenge.
An
anti-diversity challenge, in my view, is any unfortunate course of action that
contradicts the commitment an organisation has previously made towards
promoting diversity (in this case, we are speaking of anti-diversity within
boards).
Observing the rationale
for greater board effectiveness through the lens of diversity
As per the article by Michael O’Dwyer, Spencer Stuart, the
executive search firm conducting the study, noted in the firm’s 2023 UK Board Index that
in the last 12 months and for the first time, the number of ethnically diverse
and female directors in publicly-listed firms had fallen. Why was this the
case? Indeed, Spencer Stuart reports that this phenomenon is owed to the fact
that boards are seemingly self-perpetuating entities, preferring to hire
candidates who have previous experience spearheading publicly listed companies.
We know that to their detriment UK Boards are lacking (somewhat
severely) in HR expertise, according to recent
CIPD research. But in order to combat this dilemma highlighted in
the FT, what approach to board search is needed by listed companies in order to
achieve the objective of greater board
effectiveness?
Well, we all believe effective boards are competent boards.
Right? Effective boards are able to execute their duties with maximum impact
and without unnecessary hindrance. As such, the optimal search process should
ideally attribute its resources impartially.
According to the FT’s columnist, Michael O’Dwyer, there is
a caveat to the underlying findings of the Spencer Stuart Board Index. That
caveat is that, despite the disappointing findings of the annual survey, there
was an increase in women becoming senior independent directors. A role
that is often a “good stepping stone” to the position of board
chair.
A
worthy caveat. However, this cannot possibly be the kind of workplace we want
to work towards in our respective journeys or to promote on behalf of our
organisations. Can it?
-------
This post was written by Alfred Anate Mayaki, a student on the MSc in HRM, and was inspired by the work of Stephanie J. Creary (2023) in an MIT Sloan Management Review article entitled, “How Diversity Can Boost Board Effectiveness”.
