By NEERA SAGGI

A six months' grace period was something I learnt to negotiate in assignments as one of the first women working in the infrastructure sector. When I was posted in the ports sub-sector, or in a large infrastructure project, many would question my suitability as a woman officer for a role in a male-dominated field. Inevitably, I would beg for six months before a decision was taken to re-post me to an assignment considered more conducive for a woman officer. Things have somewhat changed today, and many women are contributing at different levels in these tough sectors. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) is much propagated. Yet, once senses some impatience with gender diversity. 

While organizations claim commitment to DEI, only a few companies, boards and nomination and remuneration committees (NRCS) prioritize what has long been ignored. Who aboard includes as member is a strong leadership signal to others in the company. As the Companies Act mandates that the board must decide its own composition, every board has an opportunity to ensure its own diversity and lead by example. Very often, for inducting members, boards rely on their own networks as this provides comfort and continuity. However, known networks are not socially neutral and exclude diverse groups from legitimate opportunities. As Abraham Maslow observed, boards can either step forward towards growth or step back into safety.

Diversity assumes centre-stage in an organization once it goes beyond the stipulated mandate and has more than one woman as a board member.

Nuances in interactions create perceptions and these weave an organizational culture. Often, women employees state that they are hardly aware of board agendas that include a diversity component. Similar concerns led the Union Budget to include gen- der budgeting in 2005-06. But corporates rarely study the impact of their plans on differing gender needs and priorities or discuss it. This should be a board room issue, as the board is a symbol of authority and governance. If it does not insist on diverse view points, it unwittingly encourages exclusion.

Board interactions at different levels also set the tone. Is the board given to hearing diverse voices? Does what its members say reflect a quest for equality, or does it convey a condescending attitude?

To increase diversity, most NRCS place the onus on the human resources (HR) team and its leader. Champions of diversity, however, are needed at all levels. Organizations often omit to review specific cultural leanings that prevail within them. It is not just formal processes that lead to targets being met, but also unstructured conversations.

An 'affinity bias is at the root of an asymmetrical work force, and it impacts recruitment, training, assignments, promotions, halting the career progression of those who lack affinity. It also confines gender diversity to soft jobs". If this bias is not weeded out, any DEI achievement would be temporary at its best, as attrition would soon set in. 

In a race to meet business targets, there is often little patience with diversity, with boards doing little to assess the manage ment's acceptance of diversity. Today, it is politically incorrect for CEOs not to portray themselves as DEI champions. However, whether the talk is walked must be analysed. One effective mechanism is to include DEI as a key responsibility area (KRA) for the performance evaluation of top managers. NRCS tend to overlook two key factors: the cost of deficient diversity and the perseverance needed for it. Identifying diverse candidates for various positions can be complex and time-consuming. This is costly, just as provisions like creches, security, maternity leave and childcare support are. Yet, these costs are outweighed eventually by the cost of DEI failure.

Organizations rarely have a formal consultation mechanism that enables women to participate in designing a safe work environment. A clear understanding of women's needs (safety has a psychological aspect too) is critical to frame robust policies. As an independent director, my interactions with women employees have been an eye-opener. Achieving diversity is one thing, fostering an inclusive culture, where different voices are heard and valued, is another. Boards forget to assess if their organization absorbs diverse employees well or suffers from a cultural bias that discourages assimilation. Dismissive attitudes to compliance requirements like POSH, maternity leave, etc, can add to discord. Any talk of the alleged futility of such policies and criticism of privileges' can create dissonance. Lost in such conversations is how diversity adds value and divergent views form the basis of sound decision-making.

If replication of success is an important part of any strategy, so should addressing what has been neglected. DEI should be prioritized. Women can narrate innumerable instances of patronizing attitudes and indifference to diversity. This needs to end. Boards must demonstrate their commitment to DEL Action is more powerful than eloquence, as it goes beyond tokenism and testifies to that commitment.

Note: Views expressed in the article are of the author and do not necessarily represent IICA’s stand on the subject matter.

(IICA duly acknowledge the authorship/ownership of the article and republishing the same only for educational purpose of Independent Directors)