• Login
• Register
• Print Friendly

• Conference Home
• Welcome
• About the Conference
• Feedback
• Program
• Speakers
• Scholarship Winners
• Papers
• Presentations
• Delegates
• Delegate Resources
• Business Promotion
• Sponsors

Conference Sponsors

Supported Charity

WOB Sponsor

<

“Even when women do all the right things and have all the right stuff, they continue to be blocked from the innermost circles of power”
Diana Bilimoria, a leading researcher on women in organisations

Introduction and Background

Kate Sheppard features on the New Zealand ten dollar bill. She was the leader of the women's suffragette movement which resulted in this country being the first in the world to grant women the vote in 1893. This was only achieved with considerable activism. The benefits gained for women were bolstered by feminist endeavours in the 1970's and 1980's. Following the 2005 general election, women now make up 32 percent of the current New Zealand Parliament. Women hold or have recently held four of the five most senior constitutional positions in New Zealand: Governor-General, Prime Minister, Chief Justice and Speaker of the House of Representatives (McGregor & Fountaine, 2006). Perceptions of an egalitarian society need to be tempered as this paper will show how the drive to gender equality has impacted on Women on Boards of Directors. A situation of unusual gender imbalance that is unique in global terms is outlined. Analysis of its genesis may illuminate the pressing problem of how to achieve more equitable gender balances on global boards of directors.

New Zealand's is predominantly a nation of small businesses following Western business thought and practice. In 2004, there were some 160,000 for-profit corporate enterprises operating in New Zealand, including those owned by central (state owned enterprises) and local government (local authority trading enterprises). These enterprises had over 1.1 million employees (Goh, 2005). At February 2006, 96.4% of enterprises employed 19 or fewer people (Ministry of Economic Development, 2007). An even smaller corporate sector consists of 1600 companies with more than 100 employees (Ministry of Economic Development, 2007). Many of these larger firms are foreign-owned. Approximately 250 of these companies are listed on the New Zealand Stock Exchange (www.nzx.com) across three securities markets, the New Zealand Stock Market (NZSX), the New Zealand Debt Market (NZDX) and the New Zealand Alternative Market (NZAX).

Commencing in the early 1980's the current legislative framework embodies a number of Acts that define and prohibit discrimination, including gender discrimination, in the work place. The principal Acts are the Human Rights Act of 1993 and the Employment Relations Act of 2000 (Equal Employment Opportunities Trust, 2007). A strong commitment to meeting its Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) responsibilities has driven policy implementations with the goal of reaching gender parity on boards by 2010. The Government's strategic approach to improving diversity at board level is also reflected in the Action Plan for New Zealand Women (Ministry of Women's Affairs, 2004) and in Cabinet papers (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2002). The diversity legislation is partially implemented through the Human Rights Commission with the appointment of an Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner, Dr Judy McGregor, and supporting Unit, the Equal Employment Opportunity Unit (EEOU). This unit has conducted three censuses into the role of women in the New Zealand economy. These census reports now underpin targets, policy making and officially monitor changes.

Compared to countries such as South Africa and Norway that aggressively pursue affirmative action, New Zealand's legal framework sets a tone but is lacking in teeth and the will to implement the legislation fully. At best, New Zealand's approach to affirmative action can be called “patchy and informal” but is achieving some admirable successes in the state sector while government exhortations are falling on deaf ears in the corporate sector.

The Private Sector Prefers Male Directors

Despite the legacy of early feminists, New Zealand mirrors the rest of the Western world with few women directors. In 1985, the Zonta study of all 221 listed companies involving 1057 directorships found 13 women holding 15 directorships or 1.4%. A small increase in the numbers of women directors occurred in the 1990s when the Pajo et al (1996) study analysed 166 corporate companies with a total of 1,282 directors and found 4.4% or 56 were women directors. The 2004 EEOU census of the top 100 companies by market capitalisation reported that 5.04% of directorships were women and 72 firms had no women directors. The 2006 EEOU census found that women held only 7.13% of board directorships, that is, 46 women out of the total 645 directors. In addition, 63 of the top 100 companies had no women directors. The 2008 EEOU Census reports women as holding 8.65% on the NZSX, and 5% of the NZDX and NZAX board appointments respectively. Of 624 NZSX directors, only 54 are women. 60 of the top 100 NZSX companies still have no women directors.

New Zealand State Sector Boards approach Gender Parity

In contrast, Crown Companies in the state sector are approaching gender parity, with 35.43% in 2005 and 34.07% in 2007 female board members (McGregor and Fountaine, 2006; McGregor, 2008). Crown companies include 17 State Owned Enterprises (SOE), which are hybrid organization forms. Largely infrastructure industries, they are profit orientated and run on business lines with one shareholder, that is, the State, which exerts indirect political pressure via the board of directors. To all intents and purposes SOEs are corporate boards whose directors are drawn from the commercial sector. They must be included in any discussion on corporate board appointments in New Zealand as they are benchmark, commercially-oriented, large organizations. The State Sector Boards which are purpose rather than profit driven, have achieved 42% of women on their boards (McGregor, 2008). Analysis of this data indicates that women directors are clustered in traditionally feminine areas such as the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Health and Social Development. In areas such as Tourism, Defence and Agriculture the ratios are closer to 20%.

This “bipolar” situation does show what can be achieved with informal affirmative action. This situation of increasing gender equity on State Sector boards with contrasting low levels of female representation on private and listed corporate boards is unique in world terms. This approach can be viewed as an interim and less drastic step for countries considering legislated gender quotas, if New Zealand can demonstrate that it leads to corporate sector board equity. If this cannot be achieved or does not eventuate, the failure to move to balanced boards may itself be illuminating.

A caveat, given this skew in women's representation on state sector boards, averaging across the private and public sectors from New Zealand can misrepresent the NZ situation (McGregor & Fountaine, 2006). Such statistics should be treated with caution when sited in tables comparing board representation by country.

Implications for Pipeline Theories of Increasing Female Board Appointments

There are many roads to the boardroom for both men and women. Proponents of “pipeline” theories tend to forget this and focus on the need to increase the number of women in senior management or in Chief Executive Officer (CEO) roles before expecting women to be appointed to boards. Dalton et al (2004) suggest that women need to first serve as inside directors in their own companies to increase the likelihood of appointments in other companies as CEO's. They point to the paucity of women serving as inside directors despite rising female “C-Level” appointments that is, CEO, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Chief Operating Officer (COO). Many of these women have senior management experience and have significant years “in the pipeline” but are still not getting board appointments. This is also true of the New Zealand corporate world.

Despite the success of women in the public arena, the liberal and diversity focused political climate, advanced equal opportunity philosophies, first world technology with associated business practices, New Zealand is not a pioneer in promoting women to boards of directors in the corporate sector. In this sector, “glacial progress” towards gender equity (McGregor & Fountaine, 2006) persists despite increasing participation by women in the work force at lower levels (Murray, 2006) Women have moved in significant numbers into law, accounting and medicine but the effects of this have not yet trickled upwards and there is some doubt as to whether this will happen naturally. The pipeline to the board table appears to some correspondingly limited (Rotherham, 2007). The lack of suitably experienced and qualified women has been frequently touted locally and internationally as a major reason for the few women at board level (Singh & Vinnicombe, 2004; Van der Walt & Ingley, 2003). The ease with which women of calibre were found to populate the New Zealand state sector boards has starkly highlighted the fatuous nature of this argument.

“Queen Bees” and the “Old Boy Network”

The small and close knit nature of the New Zealand director community has been well documented (Firth, 1987; Fogelberg & Laurent, 1973; Jesson, 1987; Stablein, Cleland, Mackie, & Reid, 2004). A grouping of experienced directors who sit on multiple boards together is noticeable and constitute an easily identifiable “old boy network”, with a sprinkling of women directors, the so-called “Queen Bees” (Dalton, 2007). These women tend not to be proactive in recommending other women for board appointments or mentoring aspiring women. The prevailing attitude is that their success was achieved through their own merit and others should be capable of similar success without extra assistance. An element of denial of discrimination pervades this group despite the statistics indicating otherwise (Rotherham, 2007).

It is not in the interests of successful women directors to be openly supportive of other women or to espouse female causes. Firstly women compete directly with other women for the few board vacancies available to them. Secondly, the role of the token female director is likely to result in compliance with the majority opinion rather than the more difficult option of swimming against the stream. Research indicates that only when there are three or more women directors on a board do the benefits of diversity kick in. (Kramer et al 2006)

The Institute of Directors' Initiatives Promote Gender Inequity

New Zealand's “old boy” network may be most clearly observed in the composition of the Accreditation Board of the New Zealand Institute of Directors (IOD), which was set up in 2006 as a means to differentiate the directors of large corporates from the many directors in the SME sector. This move to accredit directors was partially a response to the high profile USA and UK corporate failures and a perceived global movement to tighten corporate governance. The IOD also believed that they should follow a perceived worldwide trend in other similar director institutes to rank, rate or set educational requirements for their director members.

The founding Accreditation Board consisted of 18 members, 15 men and 3 women, who sit on high profile New Zealand boards. Gender parity was not seen as an important criterion in the selection of this board. The board members were selected by “shoulder tapping,” that is, there was no open process of application and selection. McGregor & Fountaine (2006) noted that the Institute of Directors was not proactive in encouraging women directors. Despite the appointment of a woman CEO in 2005, this stance has not changed.

Women on Board. 1986 Report of the Status of Women Committee of the Zonta Club of Auckland

Table 1. Accreditation Board, Accredited Directors, Provisionally Accredited Directors with NZX 2005 Top 100 Companies, NZX 2005 All companies, Crown Companies

	Total Directors	Male	Female	%Male	%Female	No of Companies
Accreditation Board(31May 2007)	18	15	3	83.3	16.7	Unknown
Accredited Directors(29 April, 2008)*	123	107	16	87.0	13.0	Unknown
Provisionally Accredited Directors (29 April, 2008)	60	42	18	70.0	30.0	Unknown
NZSX 2005 Directors as at January 2005 (Stablein, 2005)	968	896	66	92.6	6.8	197
NZSX 2005 Directors (Census Top 100 by market capitalization) (McGregor & Fountaine, 2006)	645	599	46	92.9	7.1	100
NZSX 2008(Census Top 100 by market capitalization) (McGregor 2008)	624	570	54	91.4	8.6	100
Crown Companies (McGregor & Fountaine, 2006)	223	144	79	64.6	35.4	36
Crown Companies (McGregor 2008)	226	149	77	65.9	34.1	100

* Accredited Directors include the 18 Accreditation Board members

As at 29April 2008, 123 directors had been accredited, of which 13% were women. 60 had been provisionally accredited, 30% of them women. This low uptake at the Provisional Accreditation level reflects the lower status of the title. The name is of considerable concern as it implies a transitional or partially qualified state. This is incorrect as accreditation is based on organization size or “substance”. Many provisionally accredited directors will never become accredited because they are directors of smaller firms. The higher ratio of women to men in the provisional accreditation statistics reflects the male preference for high “status” appellations and is so the provisional label is avoided (Meuller and Maier, 2006) while aspiring women directors espouse it in an attempt to improve their visibility.

The Institute of Directors plan is to limit its Board Appointment Service (BAS) to accredited and provisionally accredited directors, thus reinforcing the access of an elite few to board vacancies. The IOD believe that the BAS is a minor service and is not a priority for them although the CEO acknowledges that most members join the IOD in the hope of getting a board appointment. Around 1,000 members are registered on the BAS database, which at any one time may have approximately twenty appointments underway which could each take approximately six to nine months to complete

New Zealand Awash with Databases of Aspiring Directors

New Zealand is again unusual in that many aspiring directors are listed on a plethora of databases maintained by a variety of organizations in the state and private sectors. It is a situation where supply exceeds demand. This reflects the prevailing situation with a few experienced directors, often with multiple board appointments along with a huge pool of talented, tertiary qualified aspiring directors competing for a few board vacancies. Consequently, recruitment and selection processes for directors are often casual to nonexistent, with “shoulder-tapping” or peer referral, being the norm. This is in contrast to the rigorous processes in place for the appointment of CEOs (Harris, 2003).

Director vacancies in New Zealand are also filled by approximately seven executive search companies as part of other executive appointment assignments. These companies maintain their own databases of aspiring directors. Board appointments are not lucrative and the low fees charged are based on a percentage of the annual remuneration. These also reflect the low salary baselines for directors when compared to international director remuneration. Economic imperatives favour professional search companies promoting the “safe” option and being risk averse when faced with “diversity” candidates who may have potential but little board experience.

The state sector, maintains a plethora of overlapping databases. The Ministry of Women's Affairs, www.mwa.govt.nz, maintain a nominations service and keep a database of potential women directors. According to the EEOU 2008 Census, the Nominations Service held information on over 2,670 women available for appointment to decision-making bodies

Te Puni Kokiri, the Department of Maori Affairs has a database and board nomination service (www.tpk.govt.nz). The Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs (www.minpac.govt.nz) and the Office of Ethnic Affairs, Department of Internal Affairs (www.ethnicaffairs.govt.nz) do likewise. These government organizations can only recommend individuals when consulted and all acknowledge that there is an over abundance of candidates for the few vacancies. Many candidates do not have direct board experience and the Catch-22 situation of needing board experience to get a board appointment is openly acknowledged.

Ultimately the appointment of board members in the state sector is the responsibility of the Crown Companies Monitoring Advisory Unit (CCMAU). This agency maintains one of the largest databases of candidates with the 2008 EEOU Census reporting 2,879 women listed. CCMAU have stated that parity on boards could be easily achieved. The realities of political patronage mean that this is unlikely as long as appointments are not entirely merit based and require political endorsement (CCMAU, 2006).

Current board appointments in this sector illustrate this reality, leading McGregor (2008) to talk of “worrying slippage” and “incremental progress that has slowed or stalled”. In the lead up to the 2008 national elections, State Owned Enterprise (SOE) boards are being expanded with extra directors. There has been a 10% increase in directors since the 2006 Census of Women's Participation. 12 additional directors have been appointed among whom is one token woman. In 2006, the 18 SOE's had 109 directors, 39 female and 70 male directors. As at 28 February, 2008 there are 121 directors, 40 women and 81 men across 17 SOE's.

One interesting but unintended consequence is that the State Sector has become an informal training ground for women and/or Maori corporate directors, despite some backlash demanding that only experienced directors be appointed. However the transition to the corporate sector by experienced women directors from the state sector is not occurring. This reflects in the quote by Diana Bilimoria from Dalton et al, (2004) that opened this paper and the frustrations experienced by those concerned with this situation of active discrimination based on gender.

Enabler Survey and Attempted Internet Interventions

New Zealand is unusual in that there is sufficient data tracking to understand the dynamics of gendered board composition. However two areas do need improvement. Numbers of women directors in all types of business enterprise are not tracked. Many New Zealand women are directors of small or closely held companies or as entrepreneurs, run their own companies. As disclosing gender is not a requirement for the registration of directors on the Companies Register, these numbers are unknown. Reporting of Maori participation commenced in the 2008 EEOU Census with low numbers of survey returns and little data disaggregation.

The focus can now move from measuring progress to stimuli for change and the factors that would enable women to succeed in getting appointments on substantial boards. “Enablers” can be separated into two different types. Firstly, enablers that determine the supply of women directors appear to be well understood and studied. These range from personal attributes to organisational attributes such as the influence of mentors. It is on the demand side of the equation where the understanding of relevant enablers is lacking. The critical question is how to create an environment which enables male decision makers to make board appointments that focus on diversity and merit and rather than on conformance and certainty.

Even more basic is the question concerning a market place where interested parties can meet in a confidential and congenial setting to determine whether there is a matching of offered abilities with the requirements of a particular board. Preference for shoulder tapping as a recruitment tactic and plethora of databases has meant that aspiring directors have no means for contacting recruiting companies or even being aware of which boards are in recruiting mode.

To determine which enablers were perceived as critical, an online survey was conducted in 2007 among the director community of New Zealand as part of the author's doctoral research. The survey was distributed online by organisations such as the Ministry of Women's Affairs, the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Secretaries and a network linked to the New Zealand Institute of Directors. 165 responses were received of which 55% were male and 45% female, with 40% being in the age group 51-60. 80% were currently directors of companies and 43% were actively looking for board appointments. 45% had their names down on a director database. Even if not looking for a board appointment, all would consider one if approached but 42% said it would depend on the company making the approach and 6% on who made the approach. Only 26% said they had declined a board appointment in the last year.

When asked how they were recruited to their current board, 58% were “shoulder tapped” by a friend or board colleague while 35% were indirectly recruited through a referral. Only 12% were appointed through the efforts of a professional recruiter and a higher proportion, 23% had been approached by a recruiter from the state sector. 22% said they had been appointed to a board as a result of their name being put forward from a database search. Only 10% reported responding successfully to an advertised board vacancy.

In considering multiple directorships the respondents were asked whether they were interviewed before being appointed to the board. 30% were not interviewed at all, 36% were informally interviewed with 42% having a formal interview. 10% met with a professional recruiter while 5% were interviewed by telephone or videoconference.

When asked whether their experience in finding board appointments had been positive or negative, 54% found them positive, 10% had a negative experience and the remainder qualified their answer with a variety of comments. Some noted that the “best” candidate did not necessarily get selected and one woman noted that she was rejected as too experienced for an inexperienced male, whom the chairman wanted to mentor. One director identified a disconnect between governance curricula and selection criteria as a source of dissatisfaction. Experience in areas relating to vision, values, strategy and human resources are taught in introductory directorship courses but experience in these areas is perceived as being of little value at selection time. One director reported successful board appointments but felt that was easy to get type-cast, making it harder to broaden out and transfer experience into boards in other sectors. Others noted that it was very hard to get board appointments without contacts, while another commented that no one seemed actively interested in representing potential directors in the same manner as general recruitment agents.

When asked if they would pay to join a members only Internet based group, with board vacancies in their area of competence emailed on a regular basis, with no listing of Curriculum Vitae required and direct contact to the company or recruitment agent, 54% said that it would be of interest to them. An initiative that is offering a service designed on these lines, is a web site called Find Directors, www.finddirectors.com. This Internet initiative is designed to fill the missing market place for directors and although not specifically focused around women, is attractive to aspiring women directors. As at 29April 2008, 311 directors had registered with 9 board vacancies listed. A search of the website at the same date and restricted to gender, produced 117 women and 123 men. This supports the trend of aspiring women directors embracing opportunities however limited to improve their visibility. The author predicts that this initiative although praiseworthy will fail as it is relying on viral marketing with no identifiable individual or organization promoting the concept. In addition it does not meet the criteria of confidentiality and congeniality as directors and organisations are publicly listed.

The other web brokerage service started in 2007 by the Auckland Chamber of Commerce, www.womendirectors.co.nz, appears to be another database search service and also lacks direction by an identifiable individual. The motivation for this new service is not clearly understood and in its present form is also predicted to fail.

Conclusion

In New Zealand, getting that first substantive board appointment is critical for men and women directors alike. The low level of women on private sector corporate boards means that the odds are heavily stacked against women achieving this crucial first appointment with out some other compelling advantage. Aspiring directors, particularly women with ambition are in the invidious position of having to accept high risk appointments and set themselves up for failure. Once entry to the elite group of experienced corporate directors is achieved, such directors have the luxury of refusing board appointments and can cherry pick the more high profile and less risky appointments.

For many New Zealand directors this is a sunset career with more emphasis being placed on the prestige of the board and a desire to “do some good” (Maier and Meuller, 2006). Concerns over increasing personal liability for directors and the need for indemnity insurance reflect the view that directing in New Zealand is high risk and not for the faint hearted. Succession and training of the next generation of directors of either sex, is not a prominent national concern. There seems to be no will in New Zealand at present to start an organisation that promotes the interests of Women Directors, similar to Catalyst in the USA or the Australian Women on Boards organisation. Mentoring schemes such as those being run in the UK and Canada have never been considered. A conference for Women on Boards of Directors has never been held nor suggested.

Movement towards gender parity could be expected if some of the “structural” problems are solved. This encompasses the limited market place to showcase new talent, improved selection processes that by pass the limiting effects of shoulder tapping and an acceptable form of professional training that incorporates an experiential aspect similar to the legal and accounting professions. To achieve this, an active and vocal group, both in academia and in the commercial and state sectors, is needed to drive the process forward (Adams & Flynn, 2005).

A pessimist would predict that the exigencies of power, privilege and wealth in private hands will entrench existing White male director elites. An optimist would hope that the increasing pool of experienced state sector female board directors would trickle through to the boards of the private sector. Gender parity may need the stronger medicine of legislated quotas as is happening in other countries.

The lesson from New Zealand is that gender equity at all levels is hard won, has to be cherished and promoted vigilantly. The underpinning political will with its supporting social philosophies is essential but not sufficient. Gender equity on New Zealand boards remains an elusive goal unless women directors move to take matters into their own proactive hands.

References

Adams, S. M., & Flynn, P. M. (2005). Local Knowledge Advances Women's Access to Corporate Boards. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 13(6), 836-46

Crown Companies Monitoring Advisory Unit. 2006 Briefing of the Incoming Minister retrieved from http://www.ccmau.govt.nz/pdfs/05-SOE-BIM-Jan06.pdf

Dalton, C. (2007) Queen bees: All sting, no honey. Business Horizons, 50, 5, 349-352

Dalton, C., Dalton, D. & Trevis, C Women as Directors: the 'Inside' Story Directors & Boards, Fall 2004 Issue and retrieved from
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4219727/Women-as-directors-the-inside.html
and originally quoted in Bilimoria, D. & Piderit, S. (1994). Board Committee Membership: Effects of Sex-Based Bias, Academy of Management Journal, 37, 6: 1453-1477

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. 2002. Government Appointments: Increasing Diversity of Board Membership. CO (02) 16, 19 November 2002. Retrieved from http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/cabinet/circulars/co02/16.html#a

Equal Employment Opportunities Trust Employment. 2007. Legislation Overview. Retrieved from
http://www.eeotrust.org.nz/content/docs/information/2%2E%20Employment%20Legislation.pdf

Farrell, K. & Hersch, P. (2005) Additions to corporate boards: the effect of gender Journal of Corporate Finance, 11, 85-106

Firth, M. (1987) Multiple Directorships and corporate interlocks in New Zealand firms.

Australia New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 23,2,274-281

Fogelberg, G. & Laurent, C. (1973) Interlocking Directorates: a study of large companies in New Zealand Journal of Business Policies, 3,2,16-21

Goh, K. (2005) Developments in the New Zealand Corporate Sector Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bulletin, 68, 2 Retrieved from
http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research/bulletin/2002_2006/2005jun68_2goh2.pdf

Jesson, B. (1987) Behind the Mirror Glass: the Growth of Wealth and Power in New Zealand in the Eighties. Auckland, New Zealand

Kramer, V., Konrad, A., Erkut, S. (2006) Critical Mass on Corporate Boards: Why Three or More Women Enhance Governance Retrieved from
http://www.wcwonline.org/content/view/372/175/

Harris, K. (2003). The process of Appointing Directors in New Zealand. Unpublished Masters research report. Department of Management, Massey University

Maier, S. & Mueller, J. (2006) A Research Study on Corporate Governance in New Zealand. Directions-Understanding Governance Ltd, New Zealand

McGregor, J. and Fountaine, S. (2006) New Zealand Census of Women's Participation. Human Rights Commission and New Zealand Centre for Women's Leadership, Massey University, New Zealand

McGregor, J. (2008) New Zealand Census of Women's Participation. Human Rights Commission and New Zealand Centre for Women's Leadership, Massey University

Ministry of Economic Development. (2007) SMEs in New Zealand: Structure and Dynamics 2007 retrieved from http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentTOC_28143.aspx

Ministry for Women's Affairs. 2004. Action Plan for New Zealand Women, retrieved from
http://www.mwa.govt.nz/news-and-pubs/publications/action-plan.html

Ministry of Women's Affairs. 2006. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women Report: (6th) The Status of Women in New Zealand. Retrieved from
www.mwa.govt.nz/news-and-pubs/publications/international/cedaw-report.html

Murray G. (2006) Capitalist Networks and Social Power in Australia and New Zealand Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Pajo, K., McGregor, J. and Cleland, J. (1997) Profiling the pioneers: women directors on New Zealand's corporate boards Women in Management Review, 12, 5, 174-181

Rotherham, F. Women in Business Special Report, Unlimited Magazine 2007, September, retrieved from
http://unlimited.co.nz/unlimited.nsf/default/B2AB3FB13A94DB7ECC25733800791DD8

Singh, V. & Vinnicombe, S. (2004) Why So Few Women Directors in Top UK Boardrooms? Evidence and Theoretical Explanations. Corporate Governance: An International Review 12:4, 479-488

Shilton, J., McGregor, J., Tremaine, M. (1996) Feminizing the boardroom: a study of the effects of corporatization on the number and status of women directors in New Zealand companies. Women in Management Review, 11, 3, 20-26.

Stablein, R., Cleland, P., Mackie, B. & Reid, D. (2005) New Zealand Exchange Limited (NZX) Boards And Directors: It Is A Small World After All. Paper presented at 18th Annual Conference of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management

Statistics New Zealand. 2006. New Zealand Census data retrieved from
www.stats.govt.nz/census/census-outputs/quickstats

Van der Walt, N. & Ingley, C. (2003) Board Dynamics and the Influence of Professional Background, Gender and Ethnic Diversity of Directors. Corporate Governance: An International Review 11 (3), 218-234.