SLID women’s forum shines light on gender diversity

By Shehana Dain

Sri Lanka today has acknowledged the gender gap dilemma with local politicians taking it up in their respective political manifestos. However has action been taken to actively address the issue? Have we walked the talk? These are commonly raised questions by the few eminent female business personalities in the corporate board room.

According to Central Bank’s statistics Sri Lanka has one of the lowest female workforces in the Asian region while almost 20% of our GDP gets eroded due to this cause primarily. Furthermore corporate bigwigs are continually criticised for not giving the much needed opportunity and space for women to enter the decisive board rooms or senior positions. The Sri Lanka Institute of Directors (SLID) built an interactive platform to voice the unheard at their ‘Women on Boards’ panel discussion recently, attracting an audience of well versed professionals as well as the young and ambitious to break ground. 

The discussion took an interesting turn as Cargills Bank Non Executive Director Faizal Salieh in his capacity as moderator inaugurated the session by putting forward some of the most common issues faced by women to the panellists.

Is there a strong case for gender diversity in the boardroom?

 Diversity in terms of different skills, experiences and cultures in the board room is quite a mainstream concept today; however has gender diversity joined the ranks?

Without further delay Salieh bowled his first delivery to Janashakthi’s Independent Non-Executive Director Anushya Coomaraswamy who asserted that women participation in the board room will bring a whole new perspective in the area of ethic governance compared to how a male would look at it.

“We can see things differently than how a man would look at it which could add to the strength of the board,” she said.

Noting that women’s leadership style is naturally collaborative Nestle Lanka PLC Managing Director Shivani Hegde opined that diversity today is a necessity in the board room. 

“Women look at relationships not just as transactions; it goes beyond that and mixes with emotional content. Where this plays a role is by building trust not just with the organisation but also with the stakeholders.”

Taking her personal experience into accord Ceylon Biscuits Ltd. Managing Director Sheamalee Wickramasingha made a valid point saying that diversity depends on the woman herself and characteristics that were mentioned by Hegde and Coomaraswamy are personal and not necessarily gender biased.

Being the only man in the panel Capital Trust Securities Group Chairman Moksevi Prelis had quite a tedious task to fulfil. “Is gender diversity the only diversity in an organisation? I think it’s only one aspect in boards. Diversity should be in skills, background and experiences not just gender.”

Prelis highlighted his doubt saying that gender diversity has become fashionable and it’s not the need of the hour when local corporates are getting less and less competitive in the export market.

“Will everything be corrected if we have women on board? Should we have innovative thinkers maybe a woman or a man?” he asked. 

Why aren’t women on boards?

 Elaborating on her view point to the question raised from the audience Hegde noted that there are two sides for this.

“The first thing gender diversity should address is mindsets; here I’m referring to the mindset of male colleagues and also mindset of women who shy away from asking what they want. Second is the point of view of the organisation which is changing quite rapidly; organisations should provide women with their special needs and requirements.” Having worked in the corporate sphere for a long time she said that women generally tend to drop out of work due to their role as a mother and wife and once an organisation starts understanding this there would be a lot of women reaching up to the top level. 

Wickramasingha once again recalled her previous statement saying that it doesn’t matter if you’re a woman or man. According to her working in a male dominant environment she explained that she never felt intimidated by them.

“I serve on a family board; the reason I’m there is probably because I’m a family member. At the same time I would not be there if I couldn’t do the job. The question here isn’t asking if you’re a woman; it’s about asking are you up for the job.”

“The biological clock and the career clock go parallel for women and having your company facilitate your needs is great encouragement. We see this in foreign countries however not in Sri Lanka so there are lot of capable women dropping out and not pursuing their real potential.” 

Breaking the glass ceiling

 It was the judgment of an audience member that men and women do not come from a level playing field when applying for top positions of a company and the burden of family should not necessarily fall on the woman as the responsibility falls on the father as well. 

It was also mentioned that organisations should do gender based case studies as they cannot expect women to come forward leaving more intangibly rewarding things such as nurturing family if there is no equity in the reward as well.

Commenting on his vast experience Prelis surprised the female dominated audience by opining that the glass ceiling for women is indeed a myth.

“If there’s glass ceiling it’s not male established; women themselves put it there. Women’s priorities change when they go to the top.”

He also criticised research findings that can be quite misleading to mention that companies with women on board perform well just because of the presence of female board members.

“Why has a company performed well; is it just because of the women? No it’s not the case; the effort is across the board and yet they keep throwing figures like this.” 

Meanwhile the rest of the panellists collectively disagreed with Prelis with regard to his glass ceiling comments while Coomaraswamy brought her expertise to the panel by reliving her capacity as a director. “We had a problem with a bank; the immediate reaction of all the men in the board was to halt all transaction with the bank and don’t give in to them. I dealt with it and when I came back it was better facilities for all the companies in the group. Women tend to negotiate in a better way to get better results. I personally feel that men are challenged because they don’t want to their thinking to be questioned and women will question it with the different perspective they bring to the board.”

“Women have been put into this general basket as a burden to a company and not being able to return back to work after a timeline when your kids have grown up and work your way up is a glass ceiling,” she added.

Hegde responded taking a global standpoint, “There is a different kind of glass ceiling that is merging which is coming from globalisation. The requirement that organisations have is that when you’re the CEO of a company you should have international exposure which brings in the whole perspective of the mobility of women. So for women it’s about juggling a dual career and organisations will have to facilitate this. So yes there is a ceiling which has been imposed by such requirements.”

Wickramasingha bringing a slightly different observation said that women do not bring themselves up to apply to top positions constraining themselves.

“There is lot of pressure being put on women due to family related issues. There’s definitely an old boys club; this is a mind set. The social context is changing and it’s important that the younger generation go into the workforce. Yes there is a glass ceiling but its clearing slowly.”

Is a woman risk averse by default?

 Answering the question put forward by the moderator to the ladies in the panel Coomaraswamy took her turn by saying that women analyse risk in a more detailed manner and that they could do a final analysis moving away from the norm. 

“I have had situations where I have objected to some decisions and have been labelled as risk averse subsequently but I don’t think we are risk averse.”

Hegde retorted the claim noting that at the end the gender hat should go away. “Get rid of the stereotypes that are etched in our minds and get this gender hat off the head. There is absolutely no characteristic of risk averseness in women.”

In the contrary yet again Prelis made a divergent statement. “It’s a known fact that biologically women are less risk takers by nature. However it doesn’t mean that when it comes to these situations women can’t overcome that. So yes it is inherent but there’re exceptions due to training, background and other reasons. Women being risk averse is sometimes quite beneficial to a board as well because we need that balance. In fact diversity in risk taking types is also needed.”  

Gender progression: Public sector vs. private sector

 Prelis affirmed that gender progression in the public sector is far more advanced than the private sector; however he attributed it to the lack of competition on public sector boards. “By and large they are monopolies or semi monopolies and there is no competition and there is culture of seniority time related promotions due to various reasons. Even the biggest banks you go up the ladder and it’s like a cue; if a woman joined a bank one month before a man she gets the job. I personally don’t believe in it as it should be merit based.”

Thus Salieh put forward this issue to the ladies in the panel where he asked whether women get outnumbered when it comes to talent and merit. The audience seconded this however they also stressed that the public sector accommodates women way better than the private sector in terms of maternity leave and other aspects, which ultimately attracts more women. 

National policy to increase women participation in the workforce

 Salieh finally touched how governments can ease this national dilemma depicting how countries such as Norway and India have enforced legislations to facilitate women to climb up their career ladder.

“Some countries have gone into formulating gender equality policies; for example Norway has a 40% for women to be appointed to listed company boards since the 2008 quota while Malaysia has 35% quota for all new board appointments and India has moved towards it.”

“This has once again become fashionable and quotas are absolutely detrimental in the corporate world and it has been unsuccessful. This is a double edged weapon and can be counterproductive for women because everybody knows that she’s here just because of a law and due to her merit. However in the legislative field there may be a case after all in the case of democracy.” The ladies in the panel were also in the same view point who said that it’s a ‘big no and could even bring a bad name to women in general’.

Moving on following an interesting evening, Salieh whose adept moderation of the session prompted a sharing of wisdom from panellists rarely observed on the same stage, concluded the panel discussion on a very fitting note.

Pix by Lasantha Kumara

​