Now
Fair
22°
High
36°
Low
13°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Editorial Main
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Equity good for women and bottom line

Comments 7 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Tuesday, Nov 28, 2006 - 12:16:54 am CST

If it’s any consolation, and it isn’t, at least we can say Lancaster County is doing as well or better than the Fortune 500.

A local report, “A Place at the Table: An Update,” indicates that women continue to be underrepresented in local politics, on boards, elected offices, government commissions and task forces.

Based on surveys conducted between July and September,  the report updates the 2003 Lincoln-Lancaster Women’s Commission’s report on women’s participation.

Of the 2,420 possible seats on the community’s 219 leadership boards surveyed in 2006, men occupied 70.7 percent of the seats and women 29.3 percent, according to the report.

Female representation among elected officials has jumped 11.9 percent since 2003, but the overall female participation rate dropped 0.6 percent.

That overall rate is is not where we want this county to be headed. And it isn’t because of the fundamental issue of equity, which ought to be enough. 

It’s also because local government is not being served best if it isn’t being served by a representative array of its constituents.

How do we know this? Here’s an example: Catalyst, a research and analysis nonprofit that works on gender equity issues did a study of the aforementioned Fortune 500, the largest corporations in the United States, many of which are represented on Catalyst’s board. Lots at stake there, financially, legally and equitably,  and no tolerance for error.

Catalyst’s 2005 study showed, women held 16.4 percent of corporate officer positions, up just 0.7 percentage points from 2002. At the estimated growth trend for the past 10 years (0.82 percentage points per year), it will take 40 years for women to reach parity with men in corporate officer ranks, the Catalyst study showed.

So what?

Another study by Catalyst showed that Fortune 500 companies with the highest percentages of female corporate officers experienced, on average, a 35.1 percent higher return on equity and 34.0 percent higher total return to shareholders than those with the lowest percentages of women corporate officers.

Not proof, Catalyst acknowledged, but a strong correlation between companies that have diversified their senior management and companies that performed well financially.

“That’s about as bottom line as I can get you,” said Bonnie Coffey, executive director of the local Women’s Commission.

We agree.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Editorial Main > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Jody P. wrote on November 28, 2006 8:32 am:
" But is the relationship between the percentage of female corporate officers and the rate of return one of direct cause and effect? The editorial leaps to the conclusion that it is. But I think it's difficult to see exactly how the percentage of women officers could directly result in an increased rate of return. What is the writer suggesting - that men don't care about profits? C'mon be serious. "

 Been there wrote on November 28, 2006 8:35 am:
" Send a copy of this editorial to University of Nebraska-Lincoln administrators and department heads. And then hold their feet to the fire about hiring not only female professors but also females in the management/professional category. My department head informed us a few years ago that he just couldn't find any "qualified women" for managment positions after a "national search." Ironic, as I personally had the required degree and 20 years of experience at the time; a number of other women in the department had similar backgrounds. Meanwhile the "good old boy network" continued to refuse to assign women to the most important committees (managment and technology) because we weren't high enough in the hierarchy, socialized solely with other male employees, and quietly mentored young males while ignoring young females. All the time claiming that they didn't discriminate because they "considered" every application that came from women. Unfortunately, the University supported them completely. When the University started slashing positions because of budget cuts a few years ago, women in the department were culled like diseased livestock. But all the male managers managed to retain their positions despite having half as many employees to supervise and half as much business to conduct. Not surprisingly, most of the departed women went on to much better and higher paying management jobs. "

 See it wrote on November 28, 2006 11:08 am:
" Just because a woman has that big piece of paper (degree) doesn't make her capable of a certain job. I've seen women without that piece of paper that were excellant administrator, managers etc. Granted teachers need a degree, but theres too many businesses that women executivies are more about their importance than the business they are suppose to be supplyintg. "

 Hemet wrote on November 28, 2006 12:33 pm:
" Dear "Been there" you have grounds for a suit based on the 64 civil rights act. See a lawyer. "

 Women's Libber wrote on November 28, 2006 2:37 pm:
" In response to Jody P., the editorial is not suggesting a direct cause-effect relationship but something a bit less specific. What the editorial is trying to point out is that companies which have a variety of points of view involved in management/leadership positions tend to be more profitable. I would submit that the reason, simplistically, is that the "good ole boys" all think in the same way and come to similar conclusions. When you start adding in people with different backgrounds and wider life-experiences, you start having the ability to "think outside the box." "

 Jody P. wrote on November 28, 2006 4:55 pm:
" I grasped that the editorial is claiming that companies with "variety" tend to be more profitable. But you are correct that your suggested reason is simplistic. It sounds like something I'd expect Lily Tomlin to say in that "9 to 5" movie. My basic point is that the reason behind such a correlation (if in fact the correlation exists, which I think might be doubtful) might be that the "variety" (aka "diversity") is not a cause but an effect of another factor. Finally since the editorial says that Catalyst works on "gender equity issues", I really do think that their research may be slightly biased to produce the result that they intended to look for beforehand. "

 kirby wrote on November 30, 2006 8:17 pm:
" What in the hell does this have to do with fortune 500? "

Ads by Yahoo!