Facebook Ignoring Women in the Board Room

Facebook, which is currently preparing an IPO, has come under fire for lack of diversity on its board of executives. Currently, the seven directors are all white and male, leading to Facebook being attacked for its lack of female representation on the board. Organisations such as Ultraviolet have protested outside Facebook’s headquarters in an effort to encourage Zuckerberg to add women to his board before the proposed IPO occurs. CalSTRS has also previously appealed to Facebook to diversify their board, highlighting evidence that companies with varied board members perform better.

According to recent surveys, 58 percent of Facebook’s 900 million users are female. Is it ill-informed for the company to ignore the voice of so many of their users- nearly two times the population of North America?  In terms of Facebook’s business, is it naïve to completely negate the influence of half your target market? This is the argument many opponents are currently positing towards Facebook.  Many activists are sighting Zuckerberg’s reasoning for not employing a female director as sexist, claiming that he does not believe there is a woman with the technological experience suited for the job. If this is the case, look towards your management structure- Facebook’s own Chief Operating Officer, Sheryl Sandberg, could be appointed. Or, as Facebook needs to look towards advertising and media revenue streams, why not examine someone currently working in these sectors as to diversify the board’s experience also.

However, Facebook is not the first Silicon Valley company to ignore the benefits of creating a diversified and gender balanced board of executives. The longstanding Adobe Systems Incorporation does not have any women directors, with companies such as Apple, Groupon and LinkedIn only having one female director. It appears to be a reoccurring trend to ignore the power and opinion of women in the technology firm's board rooms.

However, at the end of the day it is important to consider not only the gender balance argument. Is it really the best policy to employ an equal amount of male and female directors if they are not best suited to the job?