Menu

Quote of the Day: Abysmal Lack of Diversity in Corporate Boardrooms

“Today, the Alliance for Board Diversity released a report, Missing Pieces: Women and Minorities on Fortune 500 Boards — 2010 Alliance for Board Diversity Census, that confirmed what many of us have known for some time. The abysmal statistics regarding the lack of diversity in Corporate America are growing worse. …

[I]n the Fortune 100, between 2004 and 2010, white men increased their share of board seats in corporate America from 71.2% to 72.9%. Minorities and women shared the remainder with very few seats occupied by Asian Pacific Islanders, Hispanics or minority women in particular.

Thus, even though there are more qualified diverse candidates for corporate board seats than ever before, fewer of these candidates are being chosen for corporate board seats. Even though our nation has grown more diverse, the corporate boardroom is proving resistant to change. …”

Commissioner Luis A. Aguilar, Statement on Growing Lack of Diversity in the Corporate Boardroom

Print Friendly

Leave a Reply

  • Michael Cooper May 3, 2011, 4:59 AM

    Whilst I’ve seen undeniable proof of the statistics first hand, I’ve still yet to see any proof that Nomination and Remuneration committees are basing their resolutions on anything other than ‘the best qualified person for the job’.

    Reply
  • Michael Cooper May 3, 2011, 5:01 AM

    Whilst I’ve seen undeniable proof of these statistics first hand, I’ve never seen anything to suggest nomination and remuneration committees are basing their resolutions on anything other than ‘the best qualified person for the job’, at least in my part of the world anyway :)

    Reply
    • Vanessa Schoenthaler May 3, 2011, 5:37 AM

      I think for the most part that’s probably right, even on my side of the globe :)

      It’s a difficult issue. You really do want the best qualified person for the job, not just someone who fits a certain diversity profile.

      I haven’t seen a copy of this particular study, but what I find most interesting about the quote, and what I think really needs to be examined and understood, is the point about there being a larger pool of qualified candidates yet board composition remains essentially the same. Is this due to low turnover? Selection bias? Poor candidate/board matching? Something else entirely?

      Reply
  • Whilst I’ve seen undeniable proof of the statistics first hand, I’ve still yet to see any proof that Nomination and Remuneration committees are basing their resolutions on anything other than ‘the best qualified person for the job’.

  • Whilst I’ve seen undeniable proof of these statistics first hand, I’ve never seen anything to suggest nomination and remuneration committees are basing their resolutions on anything other than ‘the best qualified person for the job’, at least in my part of the world anyway :)

    • I think for the most part that’s probably right, even on my side of the globe :)

      It’s a difficult issue. You really do want the best qualified person for the job, not just someone who fits a certain diversity profile.

      I haven’t seen a copy of this particular study, but what I find most interesting about the quote, and what I think really needs to be examined and understood, is the point about there being a larger pool of qualified candidates yet board composition remains essentially the same. Is this due to low turnover? Selection bias? Poor candidate/board matching? Something else entirely?