The explanations, which come from a range of FTSE 350 Chairs and CEOs, were heard by the team behind the government-backed Hampton-Alexander Review.
The government-backed review has challenged all FTSE 350 companies to ensure that at least a third of their board members and leadership are women by 2020.
Despite a major drop in the number of top companies with all-male boards, many are still refusing to move with the times – and some of the worst explanations firms have made for not having women among their top employees have been revealed in a new report.
Outrageous explanations for not appointing more women include suggestions they are not able to understand the ‘extremely complex’ issues FTSE boards deal with and the idea women do not want the ‘hassle or pressure’ of sitting on a top board.
The worst explanations heard by the team are:
- I don’t think women fit comfortably into the board environment
- There aren’t that many women with the right credentials and depth of experience to sit on the board – the issues covered are extremely complex
- Most women don’t want the hassle or pressure of sitting on a board
- Shareholders just aren’t interested in the make-up of the board, so why should we be?
- My other board colleagues wouldn’t want to appoint a woman on our board
- All the ‘good’ women have already been snapped up
- We have one woman already on the board, so we are done – it is someone else’s turn
- There aren’t any vacancies on the board at the moment – if there were I would think about appointing a woman
- We need to build the pipeline from the bottom – there just aren’t enough senior women in this sector
- I can’t just appoint a woman because I want to
“We’re used to hearing a plethora of pathetic excuses offered for not doing something, however this report has revealed some absolute shockers. The excuses for not appointing women to FTSE boards once again reveals the entrenched antiquated attitudes that still exist at board level. Perhaps these board members would prefer women to simply stay at home making their dinner as, clearly, talent and merit comes much lower down their list of essential requirements for a board member than gender.
“Just when we thought that progress would be made by gender pay gap reporting, this report appears to show that it’s more a case of one step forward, two steps back when it comes to gender equality. It’s clear that discriminatory practice continues to be rife at senior level, and much more needs to be done to change this.”