.... and for most of those, the exact same arguments apply.
Stanley Motta is an electronics store. Both men and women work there and buy electronics. AIFM is an energy company. Ditto. Spanx is the only one on your short list where a supermajority of stakeholders are women. Even with Spanx, one could argue that slimming undergarments are for couples, where having one male voice in the room could help make sensible decisions. Seems like for those oddball cases, it's mostly an upside to diversify representation, even if it's in the opposite direction.
I see a few problems:
- Boards mostly come from an old boys network. I have not seen board members who were exceptional individuals so much as well-connected individuals. Even "diversity hires" -- and they're called that -- seem to pick from a tiny number of individuals who managed to break into that network, rather than individuals from minority communities. It's not a meritocracy.
- Boards don't represent the customers or employees, and often do things which harm some groups. Having all voices in that room helps.
- And so on...
Those sorts of arguments align doing good, doing well, and reducing (legal) corruption.
If I wanted to improve the law, I'd try to come up with ways to have representation from African American inner city communities, poor Southern rural communities, immigrant communities, and a whole slew of other groups who are traditionally underrepresented. I'll emphasizes communities -- people who are aware of culture and day-to-day life.
"Good" laws also do less tokenizing, and are less likely to become obsolete:
- The argument that a woman is on a board because... she's a woman is pretty stigmatizing. The argument that diverse perspectives maximize shareholder value is not.
- If, in 2050, we have 50/50 representation, or a minority group moves into the majority, balanced laws self-correct.
Stanley Motta is an electronics store. Both men and women work there and buy electronics. AIFM is an energy company. Ditto. Spanx is the only one on your short list where a supermajority of stakeholders are women. Even with Spanx, one could argue that slimming undergarments are for couples, where having one male voice in the room could help make sensible decisions. Seems like for those oddball cases, it's mostly an upside to diversify representation, even if it's in the opposite direction.
I see a few problems:
- Boards mostly come from an old boys network. I have not seen board members who were exceptional individuals so much as well-connected individuals. Even "diversity hires" -- and they're called that -- seem to pick from a tiny number of individuals who managed to break into that network, rather than individuals from minority communities. It's not a meritocracy.
- Boards don't represent the customers or employees, and often do things which harm some groups. Having all voices in that room helps.
- And so on...
Those sorts of arguments align doing good, doing well, and reducing (legal) corruption.
If I wanted to improve the law, I'd try to come up with ways to have representation from African American inner city communities, poor Southern rural communities, immigrant communities, and a whole slew of other groups who are traditionally underrepresented. I'll emphasizes communities -- people who are aware of culture and day-to-day life.
"Good" laws also do less tokenizing, and are less likely to become obsolete:
- The argument that a woman is on a board because... she's a woman is pretty stigmatizing. The argument that diverse perspectives maximize shareholder value is not.
- If, in 2050, we have 50/50 representation, or a minority group moves into the majority, balanced laws self-correct.