The appointment of women to senior management positions is being held back by male-dominated boards who hire executives that are similar to themselves, a report has warned.
According to research conducted by Cranfield University on behalf of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, potential candidates for board-level posts among FTSE 350 companies are generally hired based on how well they “fit in” with existing, mostly male, directors.
This means that, while executive search firms may be managing to get women onto candidate long-lists following the introduction of a voluntary code of conduct in the wake of the Davies report last year, there are still barriers in the later recruitment stages.
When drawing up short lists, it appears that women are at a disadvantage in that they are judged on their ability to conform to the values, norms and behaviours of existing, predominantly male, board members.
Baroness Prosser, the EHRC’s deputy chair, said that the research showed more diverse boards produced better company performance.
“However, the often subjective way appointments are made ends up replicating existing boards rather than bringing in the talented women who could bring real benefit to individual company performance and, ultimately, help Britain’s economic recovery,” she added.
As a result, the organisation recommended that the selection process be made more “transparent, professional and rigorous” to encourage more women to apply for board-level positions and make it more likely that they would be appointed.
Karen Gill, co-founder of membership organisation, everywoman, which aims to advance women in business, said: “It’s easy to hire the image of what you know so chairmen must make a conscious decision to take the blinkers off and consider applicants on a proven track record.”
While it would be a “leap of faith” for many, British boardrooms did not need more of the same. Instead they needed “women with the right competencies and a different perspective to bring to the table,” Gill added.
