California may mandate a woman in the boardroom, but businesses are fighting it | Hacker News Reader

California may mandate a woman in the boardroom, but businesses are fighting it

techcrunch.com

37 pointsmalvosenior35 comments

Maybe I’m just hopelessly naive, but I really don’t see most boards in corporate America purposely conspiring to only have White men on thier board. Yes, I am a member of the “underrepresented minority”.

I think it may be more of a function that you choose people you know — if that’s the case somehow encourage people to broaden thier search or the classic “pipeline problem”. For that, I’ve got nothing.

Not on the board level, but I use to work for a company where out of 250 employees, I was the only Black guy. I don’t think it was due to racism, but they were based in an area of TN where the overwhelming majority of people were White. I would also assume that most Black professionals who were raised and went to school in small town TN would leave as soon as possible.

When the company created a satellite office in a more diverse city, they had a more diverse talent pool.

I wouldn't call it being hopelessly naive, but is it possible you're experiencing a bit of survivorship bias?

There tends to be little outright conspiring to keep outsiders on the outside, but people tends to include and give benefits to those who look/think like themselves, or have similar backgrounds to themselves.

That doesn't justify having quotas, but there's more at play than blatant racism/sexism that keeps minorities from positions of power and influence.

"Those who look/think like themselves" has much more going than just sex/race. An individual choosing another board seat will likely a preference for people who went to the same Ivy League schools, who have the same wealthy family backgrounds, and, most important, share the same concept of how they want to run the business.

Making a law forcing a woman to be on the board won't eliminate those preferences, it will just mean that they'll choose a woman from a well-connected family who went to HBS and would be willing to support the voting positions of whomever is appointing them. You haven't changed the voting behavior too much, just the sex/racial makeup of it.

If the goal is to change how businesses behave, we would want people from entirely different fields. That is, we'd want representation from differing perspectives in the company -- perhaps from engineering or from labor.

In Germany, for instance, there is an expectation that the labor union has representation on the board [0], which would do much more for the people working in the company than having a female version of the male boardroom exec.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany

Even among rich perspectives, their inclusion of women would likely bring in views that tend to be overlooked by male perspectives.

But yes, if the goal is diversity in the truest sense then including those outside of elite/rich backgrounds may be more effective.

It seems like the topic is about gender, however.

I listened to an episode of Freakonomics I believed where the (now former) CEO of PepsiCo said that it was harder for her to promote a woman because people would think that she was promoting them based solely on gender.

Can you imagine the uproar if Obama had appointed "too many Black people" to positions of power? He would have been called the "first affirmative action President". He was already being accused of being "a secret Muslim trying to bring Sharia law to the United States".

I agree and I accept the system for what it is.

I graduated college from a small unknown historically black college (HBCU) in the mid 90s, the few people that graduated in Computer Science went on to work at small companies using antiquated mainframes either in the private sector or government contracts.

The only reason I got out was because the year before I graduated I got an internship with a company in the major metropolitan city where I still live with a company that partnered with HBCUs across the state.

When I graduated, because of help from my parents, I was able to take a low paying job that I was overqualified for as a computer operator just to get back to the city.

Another anecdote is that anytime I was able to get someone from my alma mater a job. I did. I got two Black women (really underrepresented in tech) that graduated from the same college a year after I did a job at the same place. That was thier stepping stone. That goes on everywhere you recommend people you know.

I have a younger relative who was thinking about going to the same school I went to for computer science. I recommended to him and his mother for him to just go there for two years and transfer to a school in my city - it really didn’t matter which one. Just get into the best state school up here he could. Not for the curriculum but for the exposure and networking opportunities.

> Another anecdote is that anytime I was able to get someone from my alma mater a job. I did. I got two Black women (really underrepresented in tech) that graduated from the same college a year after I did a job at the same place. That was thier stepping stone. That goes on everywhere you recommend people you know.

Do you suppose that for cases like boardrooms, this exacerbates the pipeline problem? It would imply that more dire actions are needed.

Of course it does. I didn't recommend them because they were Black. I recommended them because I knew them. It was statistically 99.9% chance that anyone who went to my HBCU would be Black. The same would happen in the opposite direction.

I didn't mean to imply that you were. What I'm getting at is that although things like overt racism aren't often reasons to why the pipeline problem exists, bias is still an underlying factor. Actions like mandating a woman/minority in the boardroom may not be the right solution, but it may come from legitimate reasons.

I agree with your perspective that it's largely a problem of social bubbles.

However, I think that forcing inclusions of people outside of the usual bubble will expand the bubble over time. That's the goal of this kind of legislation, I think.

It will also potentially have side effects like under qualified people being chosen for jobs because of the color of their skin or their gender. Some people see this as an unacceptable assault on the idea of a meritocracy, while others see it as a reasonable price to pay to push society away from sexism and racism by expanding the bubbles.

> Some people see this as an unacceptable assault on the idea of a meritocracy, while others see it as a reasonable price to pay to push society away from sexism and racism by expanding the bubbles.

Incredibly well put. I wish more conversations around affirmative action were framed with this in mind. Trying to argue around this is disingenuous from both sides.

I think the worst part about arguing the angle of meritocracy is that there is always chance and bias from subtle unknowable sources in any attempt at meritocracy. These policies don't perturb the quality of your ideal that much, you're just more aware of the defect.

There is always a chance of bias, but mandates like this can serve to strengthen and reinforce that bias, which could be a significant step backwards.

The credentials of any woman serving on a company board will be questioned, and for many people the assumption will be that they are less qualified than the men on the board.

It's also the fact that you can't get rid of sexism and racism by legislating a requirement for... sexism and racism! You can't get away from being sexist and racist by adding more sexism and racism.

On top of that: you keep everybody in a sex/race mindset, you create jealousy, you give the unfavored groups an actual reason to boil with fury (not helping relations here...), and you give everybody a reason to doubt the accomplishments of the favored groups.

This is toxic.

I have mixed feelings. I am against outright quotas for the reasons you state, but I’m all for expanding the search for qualified people and deemphasizing internal referrals.

I got my start because there was one company that specifically targeted internships from HBCUs. You don’t have to be Black to go to an HBCU, but few White people choose to go there[1]. Is that any less fair than companies that don’t look past a few elite schools?

When I got my first job as a team lead and was in a position to hire people on contract, my manager told me, that the company needed “another me”. I told my manager that I had a former coworker who was looking for a job and I trusted him completely. My manager was willing to hire him sight unseen and pay him more than the other contractors just based on my recommendation. I would much rather hire someone I knew. This feedback keeps the outsiders on the outside, but from my own self interest, why wouldn’t I hire someone I knew and trusted?

[1] I remember talking to a White friend of mine who told me that he was going to a (worse) college out of the city because there were “no four year schools in the city”. He acted like the HBCU didn’t even exist.

> You can't get away from being sexist and racist by adding more sexism and racism.

It's quite literally fighting racism and sexism with racism and sexism.

The mindset of people who support these types of policies is that all types of racism and sexism are not equal. They believe racism and sexism can be used as a positive tool when it helps a minority and isn't permanent.

It's very important that these policies be temporary even if temporary means for decades. Otherwise we are just institutionalizing racism and sexism which I agree is toxic. However, they can be useful in nudging society away from racism and sexism overall even if it's increased while the policy is in effect.

I generally agree with the idea that most white men are not intentionally conspiring to exclude women and people of color.

But I see women as having a special issue that a black man generally lacks: It's inherently challenging to network as a woman because a lot of business socializing that is clearly and obviously networking when two hetero men do it together gets really, really confusing when a man and a woman do the same thing. It easily looks and feels like dating instead of networking.

As a woman, I find that most businessmen either avoid me so as to avoid any appearance of impropriety or if they do talk with me, they are hoping for an actual date. I have found that it is really, really hard to get past this issue.

I feel I am making progress, but it has taken a lot of years. I mostly do not see other people talking about this issue. This makes me feel that part of the problem is that women as individuals get to reinvent the wheel. We don't have good info out there for how to clearly signal "this is a business relationship". Instead, we have a #metoo movement laying out how often men sexually harass or assault women while giving neither side tools for making sure this goes well.

Thank you.

I’ve never thought about it from that perspective and it’s true. I’ve met plenty of former male former coworkers for lunch or to hang out with on the weekend just to keep my network strong and to compare notes about the industry. As a married man, I wouldn’t do that with any female former coworkers because of appearances.

I’ve actually gone out of town to a coding conference to hang out with three of my former coworkers - one male and two females - over the past two years. But the guy who was on our team unfortunately passed away recently. It would look very bad for me to go up there just to meet my two female coworkers.

I once flew out of town with a female former coworker to get specs on a side contract we were working on. The only reason I felt comfortable doing that - especially since my wife and I had just gotten married - was because my wife had already met my friend and her girlfriend.

I’ve been texting my male former coworker on and off all day about our careers. How would my wife feel if I were texting “Barbara” all of the time instead of “Bob”?

I don’t know how to square that circle that puts women at a disadvantage.

Thank you. Excellent comment. Men often try to act like my observations on this detail are untrue and there must be some reason other than my gender that explains my difficulties.

because my wife had already met my friend and her girlfriend.

My observation has been that being openly Lesbian or trans helps open doors. I know of at least 2 male to female trans individuals who have been vastly more successful at using HN to network than I have been. I'm fairly confident this is because plenty of men would not sleep with a trans woman and it makes it easier for them avoid an appearance of impropriety. It's probably a dirty little secret because these same men likely would not want to publicly admit to an essentially transphobic position. They would want to be seen in paladin-like terms for being supportive of an oppressed minority. Meanwhile, some of these same men would not publicly wish to be associated with a hetero woman for fear there might be talk.

I don’t know how to square that circle that puts women at a disadvantage.

There is a networking service for HN called Kismet. I'm woefully behind again, but using that service has been a positive for me. So far, no one has hit on me and it has resulted in some productive feedback on a project of mine, for example.

So I think one possibility is we work at creating more social channels that very clearly signal "this is business."

I'm fairly confident this is because plenty of men would not sleep with a trans woman and it makes it easier for them avoid an appearance of impropriety. It's probably a dirty little secret because these same men likely would not want to publicly admit to an essentially transphobic position

I’m really curious about that comment. No one would say a heterosexual male that doesn’t want to sleep with a man is necessarily homophobic. Why would it be different if a heterosexual male wouldn’t want to sleep with a trans woman?

Transphobic may not be the best word, but I imagine if men who are supportive of MtF trans people openly stated they can do so because their SO and business associates would never assume them to be romantically involved with a trans woman, pro trans activists would have a cow about that reasoning.

I have been attacked on several occasions on HN by pro trans activists accusing me of being transphobic for trying to speak to women's issues here. I'm pretty sure such people would be furious to hear that trans individuals can make business connections that I can't make because those men would never sleep with a trans woman and this is why they feel comfortable backing one, making intros, etc.

I was openly homeless for years while participating on HN. I'm very painfully aware that there are many people here who see themselves as good people and who openly proclaim their interest in making the world a better place who were more comfortable watching me starve from afar than with risking any appearance of impropriety. I find it really mind boggling that anyone could be more comfortable with watching someone go hungry than with the possibility that people might raise an eyebrow at the idea that "maybe he's attracted to her."

In a weird way, it reminds me of Schindler's List. He was able to bring a young woman food precisely because he was a philanderer and everyone assumed he was sleeping with her. She said he never touched her.

I'm tired. I'm not sure how coherent that statement is.

"I feel I am making progress, but it has taken a lot of years."

Ouch. You are now more likely to be older than the other person. If he is 32, things look way different if you are 27 or if you are 53.

At least you've found an upside to this life change.

While it is crystal clear to me that sexism is a factor, it is also crystal clear to me that there are other confounding factors. So it isn't accurate to say "If only I were a man, then x, y, z."

But I also think it's really complicated and I have my moments where I feel those confounding factors have been a feature, not a bug, and have protected me from more undesirable outcomes.

I think the next 30 years will be the best years of my life. So while I'm aggravated at still struggling to make ends meet -- and apoplectic about a few details -- I'm not too bitter, overall. And not because I'm the forgiving type, a common misconception about me.

Edit: Coincidentally, I am 53.

This article is flamebait. The legislation passed the state Senate but is not expected to even get a hearing in the state Assembly before the expiration of the current legislative session.

Even if passed, because the law specifically mandates sexual/gender preferences it will face a constitutional challenge and be suspended pending full review/appeals by the CA court system.

Finally, if it survives all that...it would apply to any business that is incorporated, HQ'd, or otherwise does business with California. And would promptly get struck down by a federal court...

“assuming the idea could survive a likely court challenge.”

...does appear in the first sentence, after all.

The question is why did anyone vote for this at all? I did see at least it was limited to public companies, but I would think you have zero understanding of business to think you should prescribe the gender mix of the Board.

This would be a massive disadvantage for companies that this applied to. The Board is an extremely limited number of people making incredibly crucial decisions based on their expertise.

You want the absolutely most qualified people on a well run Board. Imagine having a single opening and knowing exactly who you should hire for it, them agreeing to take on the position, and not being able to hire them... Because they identify as the incorrect gender.

Why should the Board room be forced to have a specific gender balance? Why is it gender specifically which should be balanced and not other factors? Why just for the Board and not for the whole company? What about any or all other subdivisions within the company?

Why target Boardrooms in particular for this policy?

It seems too late for that; in the context of the sexual revolution, any human can now claim to be female.

This doesn't seem like a good idea. If this passed I would think you would question if you were hired not because of your knowledge and merit, but because you filled a quota. For publicly traded companies board members also have to be voted in. What is to stop shareholders from not voting someone in knowing that this was a 'quota board member?' Would the company be at fault (ie face penalty) in that scenario if they are publicly traded?

Another way to increase the diversity and quality of corporate governance would be to outlaw the practice of interlocking boards, where the same people serve as directors on multiple boards. Besides increasing the chances of illegal collusion and insider trading, this practice promotes groupthink, tends to concentrate wealth, and discourages diversity.

Would the downvote care to share an opinion? It improves discussion when there are two sides.

I didn't downvote you, but I didn't understand your proposal. Are you suggesting prohibiting anyone from serving on more than one board, or from joining a board that already contains someone who is also on a board they're already on?

The former. One person can serve on one board only. Perhaps an exception to serve on nonprofit boards.

Sweden is making similar suggestion, and I would like that governments first tried lead by example. The state is the single largest employer in the nation and for almost all positions there is not 50/50 gender ration. Compared to the private sector it seems to be on average worse, with many of the top 10 worst gender segregated professions being government paid positions.

I am not unreasonable, they could simply set out that by 2020 they should have a policy that any new hiring should consider how gender segregated a open position is, by 2030 a policy with active measures to correct gender segregation and by 2040 if the situation has not improved then mandated affirmative action and fines for non-compliant departments.

Currently there is not even a policy which honestly is a bit of a low bar given how much talking politicians do about diversity.

Yet another reason it'd be insanity to incorporate in California.

It's not even incorporating in California, merely having your headquarters there will cause your company to be burdened by this law.

I guess the step after this is greater representation of minorities in the board room. In general there does need to be greater representation of minorities in upper management. That does not happen as much as it should.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com