Gina Rinehart and how self-styled “progressives” are keeping the boardroom male

This is the first of two posts on Gina Rinehart,  resulting from a few debates that I have been having over the past few days, mostly on Facebook. The other one will consider her Fairfax bid and press freedom.

IN MY line of work, I get to spend quite a lot of time in high-level boardroom meetings with people who all sit on corporate boards. I also have a few relatives who have sat on various boards in their time and my extended networks include quite a number of others. This means that while am not on any corporate boards, I am not a stranger to them either.

I still remember the first time I was at one of said meetings and a female colleague muttered to me, “do you notice anything particularly… male about the room?” The truth was that I hadn’t. While I had definitely noticed that I was the youngest person in the room by at least a decade (two if you didn’t count her). Until she pointed it out to me, it did not occur to me that she was the only woman there.

That incident jolted me into awareness. Since then, I have been paying attention to the gender balance when I am in corporate settings and a lot of observations have struck me that anecdotally support the mountains of research showing that the boardroom is simply not a place for girls. Not once in the last couple of years have I ever seen anything that even comes close to gender balance. Several times, there have actually been no women present. I also find that the “higher-level” the meeting, the less women tend to be invited.

That said, there are other observations that I can make about people in boardrooms than merely their gender. They are generally very sure of themselves – often manifesting as arrogance, but always including a calm and confident demeanour. They are hard-working, ambitious and persistent to the point of obsession, they know what they want and they make it happen. They are uncompromising – they expect the best and will not accept anything less. They are often very blunt and straight-talking. They can be friendly and charming when they want to, but they can be aggressive and intimidating when they have to.

I note these things not as a criticism of the corporate world and certainly not as an affront to the people that I am writing about. I have a tremendous amount of respect for most of them, they work harder than anyone else I know and they do amazing and under-appreciated (if not under-paid) work, without which our society could not function.

I MENTIONED those character traits is because of a common thread running through them: they are generally “alpha male” traits, they are not things that women are “supposed” to be. Women are loving, conciliatory, family-oriented and selfless. Women are neurotic and emotional, they doubt themselves, they shut-down and cry when bad things happen and they panic when they are stressed. They are not confident, ambitious, persistent and aggressive. When shit hits the fan, they are the ones panicking and screaming, not the ones who take-charge – at least in most sitcoms. [UPDATE: as the comments show, apparently this paragraph was not interpreted correctly by everyone, so I need to give a disclaimer. The previous paragraph was not intended to be a true and accurate reflection of how all women behave, it was supposed to be illustrative of a stereotype.]

Again, I am not trying to say that it is a bad thing for someone to put others first, display their emotion and focus more on relationships than outcomes. I am trying to say that doing this is unlikely to get you ahead in the corporate world (or in other areas of public life). If you doubt yourself, the person who believes in themself will get the pay-rise or the promotion. If you shut-down and cry or panic, someone else will take charge. If you compromise, someone else won’t and they will have the better result in the end. Potential alone can only get you so far, there is not a lot of room at the top and to get there requires hard work, sacrifices and, above all, wanting to be there more than everyone else.

The public image of most successful women in Australia does not fit the stereotype of a high-powered Director. I say “public image” because, from my experience, the women who get to these positions do have most of these traits in private, but are able to create a persona that comes across as more “feminine” when they want to.

I refuse to believe that the corporate exec described above is actually gender-related. I know plenty of men who do not act like that. That character is simply how a person needs to act in order to reach the top of the corporate ladder – possibly the most competitive position anyone can aspire to reach (except maybe professional athlete). Other high-profile positions (rockstar, politician etc) require a huge amount of luck as well as hard work, becoming a CEO or company chair is about nothing except ability, attitude and work ethic.

THERE IS one very notable exception: Gina Rinehart. Here is a woman who is overweight and unattractive, but clearly not too concerned about her appearance and uninterested in the world of glamour and fashion. She is abrasive, intimidating and even a bully. She is willing to do whatever it takes to get what she wants, without regard to the way it makes her look or the people she is offending. She is ambitious, single-minded and dedicated to the point where she supposedly goes without any of the frills that other billionaires afford themselves so that she can re-invest all her money into her company.

She is also not a “loving mother” figure by any stretch of the imagination. She is reportedly quiet and reserved in person and she keeps her personal affairs completely private. What did leak last year was that, having judged her children as inept for running her company, she offered them each $300mln a year in return for signing-away their shares. When they refused, she fought them all the way to the High Court – becoming estranged in the process.

Meanwhile, her achievements are incredible. She inherited a floundering, debt-ridden mining company that was making its money from a lucky break and transformed it into a hugely profitable, gigantic operation – becoming the world’s wealthiest woman in the process. She is now in the process of planning the biggest Australian-owned mining development in history and is funding it entirely on her own.  Yes, she was born into some wealth due to a lucky find by her father, but many people born into wealth spend their lives turning a large fortune into a small one. She turned a small fortune into a gargantuan one.

And yet she is being punished for this – not by the Andrew Bolts and Alan Jones’ of this world, but by the very people that would generally be the first to jump to her defence if she hadn’t made the unfortunate mistake of being a Conservative and one of the mining magnates vilified by Wayne Swan. Oh, as well as committing the awful sin of giving jobs to people who weren’t lucky enough to be born in Australia.

The best (but not the only) example was the abuse she received from David Marr and Miriam Margolyes on Q and A last month:

Note: I did not criticise the others as Barry Humphries was playing a character, Tony Jones was trying to defend her while still maintaining his “distance” as chair, Jacki Weaver seemed a little stunned and John Hewson later said he regretted not arguing but felt overwhelmed. Also, Marr and Margolyes were the two noted “feminists” on the panel.

THAT INCIDENT did receive fairly wide coverage – in News Ltd papers. It was all but ignored in the ABC, Fairfax (well, aside from the SMH’s balance columnist), New Matilda etc. Some good responses were written that I could find in more minor leftist publications, however it was generally her political allies that were jumping to her defence. More anecdotally, the people on my social networks who would normally be concerned about this kind of thing have been completely silent.

Why is this such a problem? Because it shows that this kind of abuse is acceptable for women that the left don’t like. It sends the message that the only reason anyone complains about comments aimed at Julia Gillard or Christine Milne is that they are on the left and not because this kind of discourse should be unacceptable. It reaffirms the idea that women shouldn’t act like CEOs, which discourages women from acting like CEOs, which in turn means women won’t become CEOs.

To some degree I think that it may be that people who hold corporate leaders in contempt yet think they want to see more women being corporate leaders were somehow expecting female corporate leaders to be more like “women” and less like “businessmen”. The issues inherent in that assumption should speak for themselves.

It’s all well and good to conduct research and then complain about the lack of women at the top, but unless there are a lot of ambitious and competitive young women willing to fight to get there, nothing will ever change.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  1. #1 by Dikla on June 22, 2012 - 11:42 am

    I still think you are missing the point MK. In my opinion, your outlook is fundamentally flawed in that you think that it is acceptable to be a bully, uncompromising, overly aggressive to the point of rudeness and that these are prerequisites to being successful at the top, or else you’re not an effective leader. You can be an effective leader differently. Further, you assume that if a woman adopts the so-called traits it takes to be a leader that she will make it to the top. You assume that all men are fair-minded and unbiased, and do not possess any sexist tendencies, whether conscious or sub-conscious. Of course not all men are sexist, hopefully most men aren’t, but could it be possible that these competitive, uncompromising men at the top have some predisposition to this by being, as you term it “alpha male types”, therefore they wouldn’t be willing to accept women who play at their game simply for the fact they are women playing a ‘man’s game’? In my opinion, there could be something about that.

    In my personal experience, being strong, confident, vocal as a woman when you work for/with a bunch of men doesn’t actually win you any friends and you get termed a “bitch” while men who act as you are merely ‘confident’, ‘alpha male types’, ‘doing what men do’ etc. – In fact I got fired from a job once by an all male board when daring to be confident/vocal – there didn’t seem to be much interest in hearing what I had to say.

    Women are neurotic and emotional, they doubt themselves, they shut-down and cry when bad things happen and they panic when they are stressed. They are not confident, ambitious, persistent and aggressive. When shit hits the fan, they are the ones panicking and screaming, not the ones who take-charge

    Now you’re not being stereotypical there at all are you?? There are plenty of women who ARE confident, very level headed when it comes to stress, DON’T break down and DO take charge when ‘shit hits the fan’. If you want to be taken seriously, leave out the stereotypes, because quite often a woman just CANNOT win. If you are those things I just quoted you on, then you’re not fit to lead, if you buck this so-called trend people despise you for it.

    Nevertheless, when it comes to Rinehart, you still haven’t really backed up your claim that she is being vilified because she’s a woman. And again, I don’t disagree that she is being vilified by the left, and I am not saying it’s acceptable, but you can’t ignore that she is being criticised because of ideological opposition to her actions first, and the debate slides into unacceptable language thereafter. Ergo, she is not being criticised for simply being a woman. And in this I exclude Gillard and others who can be categorised in the same circumstances as Rinehart in this instance, ie they are criticised for their policy first – though not always. Whereas many women who struggle to get to the top are generally criticised for either being “too soft” or “too tough”, not because of anything that has to do with merit, or a position on a specific subject, merely for being who they are. Quite often they just can’t win. And it’s because of attitudes like what you say in your article, that women need to conform to the “male way” in order to get ahead – WHY??

    And this is why Rinehart’s treatment says very little about keeping women out of the boardroom. She was born into the boardroom. Kudos to her for her immense success and achievements – lest you say that I am not recognising her success – but the reality is that she did not struggle to get to the top. Many women who DO make it onto boards, and the head of companies etc do a great job. The issue is getting to that position, that’s the struggle, that’s where women face the biggest challenges to get ahead, and Gina Rinehart has nothing to teach us about that.

    **NOTE: this comment was originally in violation of the comments policy (see link at the top of the page) and was edited as a result.**

    • #2 by MK on June 22, 2012 - 12:00 pm

      I’ll write more when I have time, but a couple of quick points:

      you assume that if a woman adopts the so-called traits it takes to be a leader that she will make it to the top.

      No, I said that it is necessary. I never said that it is sufficient. In fact, your whole first paragraph is couched with assumptions that I had not made. I never said that it was solely the fault of women or that there were not other issues to be addressed. This is one issue, I am addressing it now — simple as that.

      In my personal experience, being strong, confident, vocal as a woman when you work for/with a bunch of men doesn’t actually win you any friends and you get termed a “bitch”…

      I know, hence the need to speak-out against the “bitch” term when applied to Rinehart…

      Now you’re not being stereotypical there at all are you??

      I think you missed the point of that whole paragraph. It was not describing how all women “actually behave”, I was constructing a stereotype. The crux of my whole argument is that these kinds of stereotypes are more circumstantial than an accurate reflection of human behaviour.

    • #3 by Greg on June 22, 2012 - 6:20 pm

      “It reaffirms the idea that women shouldn’t act like CEOs, which discourages women from acting like CEOs, which in turn means women won’t become CEOs.”

      Rinehart isn’t being criticised (by individuals of ALL political persuasions) because of her ‘alpha-male’ approach.

      She’s being criticised for placing her commercial prerogatives before 1) her family relations, and 2) Fairfax’s editorial charter of independence to protect the integrity its the paper.

      Her case is in no way symbolic of the struggle of women to gain representation on boards; you are conflating issues.
      Surely, her personal character and leadership style is completely antithetical to the cause of promoting increased levels of representation of women around boardrooms.

      Surely, as a journalist, you would find her desire for 3 board positions and her reluctance to sign the Charter to be extremely concerning.

      • #4 by Greg on June 22, 2012 - 7:25 pm

        The post above is in response to the original article – not the comment above

      • #5 by MK on June 22, 2012 - 7:39 pm

        If it wasn’t clear, I wasn’t criticising that she is being criticised, I was criticising how she is being criticised and, more specifically, the fact that self-proclaimed “feminists” seem unwilling to defend her from the kind of abuse that they would normally jump to condemn.

        But to answer your second question, I am not worried about about her Fairfax bid, but I’ll go into that on the next post whenever I have time to write it (possibly on my flight tomorrow).

  1. Women can’t have it all and neither can men « Major Karnage
  2. Threat to press freedom: it’s not Rinehart, it’s the Greens and the ALP « Major Karnage

Have any thoughts on this? Put them here!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: