Over at the Huffington Post, in Corporate Boards Getting Whiter While America Is Not, Janell Ross discusses the new Alliance for Board Diversity 2010 census, which shows that white men have increased their share of board seats in the Fortune 100 since 2004, while black men's share has decreased. I’ll be back with much more on the new census later.
But Ross also discusses the recent research that Lissa Broome, John Conley, and I have been doing on corporate board diversity, which I’ve discussed here, here, and here. Says Ross:
Another problem may be one that, for years, passed as the solution to all types of discrimination: ignore or at least avoid talking about difference.
When [Lissa L.] Broome and her research partners interviewed corporate board members around the country about the issue of diversity, many of the people interviewed expressed confidence that board diversity is valuable but were unable to articulate specific ways in which it affected decision making or shaped outcomes.
“I think part of the problem is that people are very uncomfortable talking about race and gender,” said Broome, who is white. “Talking about that is not politically correct or may not feel that way for a lot of these directors.”
As we say in Dangerous Categories: Narratives of Corporate Board Diversity:
This expressed reluctance to come to specific terms with general claims about the value of director diversity inspired our title phrase: dangerous categories. That is, while “diversity” evokes universal acclaim in the abstract, our respondents’ narratives demonstrate that it is an elusive and even dangerous subject to talk about concretely. The fundamental reason for this awkwardness is readily apparent: to argue that diversity matters in some specific way is to argue that diversity is a proxy for difference. Yet to suggest group-based difference is to open the door to both stereotyping and invidious comparison. Everyone in the debate has a vested interest in not walking through that door. Those who are not members of the excluded groups do not want to be heard to say that “they” are all alike, whereas those who are members do not want to point to fundamental differences that might be translated as “less qualified” or “needing assistance.” So we are left with narratives that simultaneously extol difference and express embarrassment with it.
I’ll be back with more detail and analysis on the Alliance for Board Diversity census shortly. In the meantime, I know what you’re thinking: “Gee, Kim, what else have you written on this topic and where can I get an immediate copy?” Your wish is my command. Our forthcoming and existing works on board diversity include:
Does Critical Mass Matter? Views from the Board Room
Signaling Through Board Diversity: Is Anyone Listening?
Dangerous Categories: Narratives of Corporate Board Diversity