Australian Financial Review
Women's higher role in the workplace.
Letter to the Editor, Australian Financial Review, published 6th July, 2005.
Wendy McCarthy's essay on the achievements of Australian women in business, education and government (July 2-3) highlighted the poor representation of women in key leadership positions as university chancellors, as executive managers and as board members.
"All this reveals something important about the evolution of women's status," said McCarthy, who commented that while it had been relatively easy to educate women, it is much harder for women to use their qualifications "as a springboard to leadership".
No doubt McCarthy applauds Julie Elliott for bucking the trend. A qualified chartered accountant and an MBA graduate, Elliott is the newly appointed president of Victoria's Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board.
Yet in the same edition that gives prominence to an essay deploring the plight of Australian women leaders, the AFR reported Elliott's achievement under the archaic headline, Woman heads fire service.
Just as well the MFESB didn't select a man as its new leader -otherwise the appointment wouldn't have even rated a mention, let alone a filler.
Ann-Maree Moodie
Managing Director,
The Boardroom Consulting Group Pty Ltd,
Sydney. NSW.
Older workers more rounded.
Letter to the Editor, Australian Financial Review, published 23rd February, 2005.
I am the youngest member of staff at The Boardroom Consulting Group and I'm also the boss.
The attraction of employing "older workers", ("Budding seniors need to 'get serious' about skills", February 4), is that they are well-educated, well-travelled, well-read and well-spoken.
Workers aged 45-plus can spell, abhor split infinitives, have excellent telephone skills, are punctual, reliable and polite - valuable attributes too often diminished by recruiters.
My staff and team of consultants - many 15-20 years older than their employer - are characterised by their energy, commitment to excellence, sense of humour and their enviable capacity not to take life too seriously. Nor are they perturbed by working with a woman, or for that matter, a woman young enough to be their daughter.
To celebrate her appointment, I gave my executive assistant a collection of red pens - to acknowledge not only that she proof reads my work, but also that I want her to alert me to my mistakes.
She turns 59 next month and will celebrate by having her braces removed.
Ann-Maree Moodie
Managing Director,
The Boardroom Consulting Group Pty Ltd,
Sydney. NSW.
Board mateship leads to bad decisions.
Letter to the Editor, Australian Financial Review, published 13th April, 2004.
The "Three Cs" that board members say constitute a well-functioning board - "collegiality", "chemistry" and "consensus" - have been brought into sharp relief with the crisis besetting the board of the National Australia Bank.
Collegiality, chemistry and consensus are words commonly used to defend the reasoning behind the closed selection process for new board members and are also liberally applied to describe the environment required for effective board decision-making.
As one board member stated in an interview with me for The Twenty First Century Board: Selection, Performance & Succession: "The members of a board must be able to trust one another because they are collectively responsible and liable for anything that goes wrong in the company."
These attributes of solidarity are quickly dismissed at times of self-interest. In a cute slight of hand, board members also use collegiality as an argument against individual performance appraisals.
More insidiously, collegiality is used as an argument for ejecting a board member. If a board member is perceived by the board to be no longer a "team player" they are deemed to be a threat to the collegiate.
A "maverick" affects the desired "chemistry" of the board and its ability to make decisions by "consensus".
The subtext of this argument is obvious: collegiality in the boardroom is desirable until it threatens the reputation, power and position of individual board members. When this occurs, it's every man for himself,albeit dressed up by an argument of what's good for the company and its shareholders.
Given the crises affecting corporate Australia, I propose it's time to debate whether collegiality - and its synonyms - is a worthwhile attribute in the boardroom.
German sociologist Max Weber puts a compelling argument against collegiality when he says it unavoidably obstructs the promptness of decision-making because it limits individual power and gags individual expression.
If Weber is right, how can board members express "unfettered, independent judgement" that they are expected to exhibit under the ASX non-mandatory guidelines for Australian listed companies?
The core principle of debating - to argue a case for or against - is easily stifled by the conformity that results from a collegiate board. There is no doubt, then, that boardroom disunity will continue to be perceived as a sign that a board is dysfunctional, rather than a sign board members are engaging in robust discussion so as to make the best decisions for shareholders.
