On September 30, 2018, California’s governor signed into law the first (and currently only) law requiring that California headquartered public companies have at least one female board member by 2020. Time for implementation is quickly coming to an end, which has spurred lawsuits. 

The lawsuits say everything from “it’s unconstitutional” to that it is “deeply patronizing to women.” Not being a constitutional lawyer, I am not going to weigh in there, but what I feel is deeply patronizing to women is the fact that we are continually passed over for positions that we are qualified for. This extends to C-suite positions, board seats and many senior positions. For board seats, women have had to rely on organizations such as Athena Alliance and Women on Boards to advocate for them. Many women have to pay for the advocacy required to be nominated to these boards, as well as pay for coaching that will make them more “suitable” candidates. This is deeply patronizing.

A CEOX reader thought that asking that women not be discriminated against while at the same time legislating women be placed on boards is “having it both ways.” I have been thinking about that comment a lot because I can see his perspective. But the fact is, women have been discriminated against, especially in business, for centuries and it is not changing very fast, and I can assure you all, I don’t have “it” both ways. Sometimes it is imperative that the government step in to force change as was done for school desegregation; as was done for allowing women to vote; as was done for child labor laws; as was done for food safety and many other discriminatory and backward practices -- and our country is better for it. 

I come from a long career in aviation, which is relevant here if you have been following the deaths due to the Boeing 737 Max. Not everyone realizes how much self-certification goes on in aviation. Although there are hundreds of regulations, the FAA delegates employees of the aircraft companies to verify compliance to these regulations. You can imagine the pressure that can potentially be placed on these delegates when there are delays in getting multi-million dollar airplanes delivered. I know this is not an apples to apples comparison, but I illustrate it to emphasize why we sometimes do need regulations. Do you want to fly in an airplane that doesn’t meet regulations? 

One point against the law that really hit me hard came from the California Chamber of Commerce that said the law "potentially elevates it as a priority over other aspects of diversity." As CEOX focuses on women in leadership, I’ve had many people ask me why I’m not focusing on minority women too. It has given me pause, I hear them, and I’ve learned I need to focus on under-represented groups from the start.

In my research, before I began CEOX, I talked to an executive recruiter focused in the tech industry. He said that the California law had spurred significantly more focus on including women in all searches, which I see as a positive outcome from the law.

The proof is there thanks to a recent study compiling data from the US Census, Harvard Business Review and Dow Jones showing that diverse teams, boards, and leadership make for more successful organizations. I wonder if we re-framed the conversation to “government is legislating more successful companies,” if there would be as much pushback?