[Ockham]

Although the question on women directors is a valid one that should be asked, I have a hard time coming to the conclusion that there is any sexism involved in Apple's decision to organize their corporate governance in the manner that they have.
Like any competitive company, Apple has chosen board members that they feel will best help them compete and be profitable as a company. I have a hard time believing that Steve Jobs, or anyone else who has influence with the board and stockholders, would pass over the best qualified and available person because they are of a given race, color, creed, or gender. They are simply going to go with the best qualified person every time. To do otherwise would not only be unfair to stockholders but would likely result in giving a competitor an edge.
It's not necessarily about probability, but more of a fact of business.

[jmincey]

In reply to:

---

They are simply going to go with the best qualified person every time. To do otherwise would not only be unfair to stockholders but would likely result in giving a competitor an edge.

---

I'll say again that if Apple nominates board members on the basis of merit alone, then even with a sample size as small as seven, (and this is a problem in its own right, that the board is so small), at least ONE woman would be present among the others.
Even the rightwing George Bush can find a place for women in his cabinet -- four out of fifteen, (which is nearly a third). And one woman is serving on the US Supreme Court (out of a total of nine). Politics aside, do you really believe no woman was more qualified to sit on the court than Clarence Thomas?
To suggest that Apple's board is all male because there was simply no woman whose qualifications or competence could equal that of the existing members is really wrongheaded and unfortunate.

[coolfactor]

When you factor in:
1) the percentage of non-Mac (read "unfriendly") computers in use
2) the fact that men are more technically astute
3) the number of women in leadership roles
4) the demands of "the man", Jobs
... shall we keep going?
Not having a woman board member isn't that surprising. It really frustrates me that men and women should be equal. We're not! We each have our own strengths and weaknesses, in general. Some develop their masculine or feminine sides more than others. I consider myself to be very in touch with my feminine side, but that doesn't make me a woman, and doesn't qualify me to work in a women's clothing store, for example (not saying Apple is a man's clothing store).
People get leadership positions because they are qualified, and there's more men pursuing those positions than women right now, although that is continually changing.
I'm involved with an all-men board of directors, and I ask the same question: why no women? Well, I answered it for myself above.

[jmincey]

I think you need to re-examine your premises which you seem to feel are a foregone conclusion. I see no data or evidence that women are less technically proficient than men; in fact, the evidence shows to the contrary, (girls score higher in math and science than boys do until puberty). Also, technical proficiency is not a make or break criterion for board membership anyway. A good board should be composed of a variety of disciplines (as I have said earlier). These include legal, financial, mangerial, administrative, production, etc.
The world is full of women in leadership roles. Are the women responsible if the men fail to recognize it as such? As for the demands of Jobs, he is supposed to be accountable to the board rather than the other way around. But in any event, Jobs has a number of women who report directly to him and are able to survive in the corporate culture under the pressures thereto.
Women work under a lot of pressure and strain every day. Open your eyes to this.

[tabasco_hot]

jmincey, a lot of posters between my original post that disputed yours and now, but you were correct. I did only scan your post, and overlook what was at the heart of your post. I should have read it more carefully. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[b_baggins]

The problem with being a liberal hippie type, is you have to take this crap seriously in your board meetings.

[b_baggins]

Let's see:
Weightlifters: 100% men.
Fireman: 100% men.
Mathematicians, Physicists, Chemists: Darn near 100% men.
Biology is real. Biological differences are real, although saying it can get you fired at Harvard, apparently.

[b_baggins]

Then you should study probability before you start citing it. If the sampling population is already weighted toward men, then that will be reflected in the final result.
In other words, representation at the CEO level does not equal representation at the university level, the general population level, the business school level or even your level (whatever that may be).
Tell you what. Why don't you let the women who think they should be on Apple's board make an issue out of it. They're all adults, and supposedly highly competent and aggressive and qualified.

[b_baggins]

"Now you don't really wish to contend, do you, that women are biologically less equipped to be a good board member than a man?"
If it's factually accurate, I most certainly will make that contention.

[jmincey]

In reply to:

---

jmincey, a lot of posters between my original post that disputed yours and now, but you were correct. I did only scan your post, and overlook what was at the heart of your post. I should have read it more carefully.

---

No crime there -- or if it were, I would be serving time myself for many counts. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Nobody]

I don't think there's anything in dispute, but I didn't consider your angle on this.
I wasn't saying that boardroom decisions are based on the absence or presence of six months of leave time fifteen years before the appointment to CEO. I thought it was clear to everyone that much of the progression through the corporate ranks is due to timing, and if someone is not in the office to catch an opportunity, that opportunity is missed. How is that a controversial or sexist comment? Then, childcare decisions can result in more time outside the office (perhaps you've never been in a corporate environment and seen the time parents have to take for myriad time demands?).
Corporate governance is a heavy job in a $30 billion company, requiring a tremendous amount of time and travel, among other sacrifices. It should come as no surprise that when a woman has identified herself as a primary caregiver to her kids, she's going to find it hard to put the company first, at least at that level. Heck, talk with a single Mom some time, and you'll see how she prioritizes her children and her role as Mother over all other things.
Many women in their thirties are choosing to have children right when they're in the peak period of their movement through the executive ranks. I don't think it's sexist to make that observation, nor am I excusing the lack of women in boardrooms - I'm just saying that there are a lot of instances where unacknowledged confounding factors can produce a downstream effect. I think this might be a factor that people haven't considered: because you declare simply raising the point to be sexist and unenlightened, perhaps you're ruling out things that would be useful to bring into the discussion.

[Ockham]

In reply to:

---

To suggest that Apple's board is all male because there was simply no woman whose qualifications or competence could equal that of the existing members is really wrongheaded and unfortunate.

---

That is not what I am suggesting at all. To clarify; when a board member's position opens up, Apple, or any company for that matter, has an obligation to their investors to fill that seat with the best qualified and available person that will help the company be more competitive. If that person is a woman or a man or a whatever is not relevant. What is relevant is that they are best able to serve the needs of the company (this is obviously an oversimplification of what goes into choosing a board member but I believe that this is pretty close to the bottom line).
Is it probable that there are women who possess the qualifications and are of sufficient stature needed to fill that position? Absolutely. Is it probable that some of those women are more qualified than men of equal stature to be board members? Absolutely. Are they willing and able to serve on the board? I don't know for sure nor have I seen any evidence that suggests this to be the case one way or the other.
I am suggesting that if Apple, or any other company, were to pass over a woman, or any other person, who is best qualified, but does not meet their approval based on gender or some other irrelevant criteria, it would be bad business, for more than a few reasons not the least of which is that they are passing over the best person for someone else and thus giving another company a competitive edge.
Maybe they have done this. I am not in a position to know for sure. However, I have a hard time believing that they have and will continue to hold that opinion until presented with evidence proving otherwise.
There is no need to reiterate your position again. I understood perfectly the first time and agree with the majority of what you are saying. I simply disagree that the laws of probability are the end-all for determining what makes good business sense at the time a board member is appointed by shareholders and further that its should be used as a prima facia basis for anything approaching condemnation in the absence of any other evidence.

[jmincey]

"Weightlifters: 100% men. Fireman: 100% men. Mathematicians, Physicists, Chemists: Darn near 100% men."
Female Bodybuilders
Female Firefighters
4000 Years of Women in Science
Association for Women in Science
For 188 years in the United States, women were denied the right to vote -- only because sexist males were so insecure they could not cope with the idea that women could be thinking individuals with minds of their own. And the battle over such bigotry continues today -- not necessarily in Apple's boardroom but definitely on the part of some participants in this thread.

[jmincey]

"That is not what I am suggesting at all...."
Thanks for the clarification of your intended meaning. Sorry if I misunderstood or misconstrued what you had intended.