Don't think anyone is debating empirical evidence and benefits a diverse set of view points and backgrounds can bring, and what that implies in terms of representation in C-suites and on boards.
I get the cynical comment "The right person decided by ten blokes? Ever heard of cognitive bias? It's a thing." but imo think it was misplaced as
a) the firm's male management previously recommended and added a female industry leader to the board on their own accord, and
b) board seats are ratified at the AGM so that all shareholders regardless of gender can vote for/against the resolution, i.e. the director.
(Not that it should matter but) I voted for Michelle as I thought her experience, industry network, and what I thought she could bring to the firm at this critical stage of its development was substantial enough to justify another board member vs. the immediate cost incurred by the company. That's because I'd expected her to help drive business to the firm using her industry network etc. It's all good to think about potential LT benefits when the reality is that atm his is still a start-up dealing with much more critical aspects such as cash burns and racing towards financial viability, which requires prioritizing what's mission critical to survival this very moment ('a must have') vs. what's a 'nice to have', irrespective if the nice to have maybe logical and morally correct.
Board seats costs the firm cash paid as director fees which may not seem substantial when running an ASX 200 company with $1,200m in revenue at a 15% NP margin, but for a firm with a negative operating margin any cash expense that's not immediately adding to the bottom line should be carefully considered. Dean invested a lot of time over the prior year getting Michelle on to the board, this was not something that happened overnight with one phone call the month before she was announced. Mike is now on the board as part of the Kaddy deal (and rightfully so) as his insight adds a different perspective.
Adding another board member at this very moment would come at an imo unjustifiable cost, not just financial but also human resources (time) considering the process involved. The firm would have to engage board consultants to identify, vet and recommend board candidates at a cost running in the hundred of thousands before the mgmt team would have to divert time to evaluate which candidates may be the right person. That's a substantial investment of money and time to review candidates and meet with them repeatedly in person that mgmt should dedicate to the operational side of the business instead. We are undergoing the integration of 3 businesses into 1 which is highly complex and takes time and all of their attention at this very moment.
Prioritizing board gender diversity at this very moment relative to all implicit and explicits costs would be an example of being 'woke' for the sake of appearance, rather than 'being/appearing to be woke' because of sensible and logical decision making as Dean and the board have already demonstrated when they added Michelle in the first place. That would indeed be an example of 'woke BS', simply for prioritzing appearance as we have historical evidence that the board actually understands the benefit of diversity, i.e. they are already 'woke'....if anyway feels the need to frame it in that manner.
So mgmt should really focus on the business at hand, i.e. the business' viability, and investors should be filled with confidence based on mgmt's past actions regarding their understanding of what diversify of views regardless of gender, creed, political affiliations, etc, etc, etc, may offer.
Expand
(20min delay)