It's well documented that despite increasing awareness of gender equality, women remain underrepresented when taking a seat at leadership tables in the corporate world. But what about the challenges women face once they make it to the boardroom?
University of South Australia researchers have found that women encounter significant struggles when navigating power dynamics in leadership teams - specifically when it comes to driving corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives. This is despite many previous studies suggesting that having more women on boards will lead to stronger social outcomes.
CSR is when a business makes a conscious effort to make the world a better place. It could be a small enterprise making a simple charity donation or large corporation giving a portion of its profits to a worthy cause.
Researchers in UniSA's Centre for Markets, Values and Inclusion, Associate Professor Wei Qian, Dr Kathy Rao and Dr Xin Deng conducted a study recently that revealed the power dynamics at play when CSR decisions are being considered by boards and companies.
Twenty senior women directors and managers from both small and large companies were interviewed from a variety of industries including banking, metal and mining, health care, finance, telecommunication, real estate and insurance.
Assoc Prof Qian says the women expressed biases and difficulties in promoting CSR to their boardroom colleagues.
"When speaking with these women, we heard several examples of women finding it hard to navigate power imbalances when it comes to driving social initiatives. One participant said she was told she 'wears her heart on her sleeve' when she was expressing concerns about a social initiative and wanting the company to go in a certain direction," Assoc Prof Qian says.
"We found that when women leaders were assigned 'soft' tasks that are assumed to be less important, such as CSR projects, they were often either marginalised or completely silenced, making them less likely to challenge board decisions or have an impact on changing performance. This created discomfort and sometimes even an intimidating environment for women to raise CSR concerns or ideas.
"Men predominantly hold the powerful positions, such as executive directors or chairs, and they dominate the 'hard' business issues."
Some women also explained how they had to take a gentler approach to advocacy, choose their words carefully and sometimes adjust their CSR ideas to make them more receptive to their male colleagues - often by reframing it as a business opportunity or a chance for the business to gain competitive advantage.
One research participant explained, "The best example was talking about the climate change program. You have to build a good story, sort of start at the economic (s) … and work your way up to (it), and then (say) 'by the way, this would be a good and responsible thing to do'."
Assoc Prof Qian says stereotypes play into the question of whether women are more receptive to CSR agendas, but overall, she believes women are more often associated with strong performance in environmental and social goals and community engagement.
"Stereotypically, women are perceived as more emotional, sensitive, caring and empathetic towards others. In contrast men are viewed as more independent, masterful and assertive," she says.
"Women directors are keener to build connections that offer social support and foster a sense of belonging, which in turn can lead them to engage more in CSR activities," she says. "This confirms that gender equality on boards matters."
The research involved participants from Australia and China, neither of which have gender quotas. The researchers say although the two countries are distinctive in terms of political, social and economic structures, female leaders experienced similar struggles in the boardroom when promoting CSR.
