I got mine yesterday.... take a look on the inside back cover.

Notice some things missing among the BofD and Executives?

Hint: It isn't white males.

Kinda shameful.

d
:td:

What's your problem with the BoD and EVP groups???

The BoD has transitioned to become a very robust independent group of businessmen, especially with the introduction of Bolton and Scace. The company has reduced internal directors from near 1/2 the board to only 20%.

Care to shed some light on your problems with the professional quals of the BoD and EVPs?

What's your problem with the BoD and EVP groups???

The BoD has transitioned to become a very robust independent group of businessmen, especially with the introduction of Bolton and Scace. The company has reduced internal directors from near 1/2 the board to only 20%.

Care to shed some light on your problems with the professional quals of the BoD and EVPs?

Sounds like the original poster might have been referring to an absence of white females.

Sounds like the original poster might have been referring to an absence of white females.

So now we're rating Westjet on how politically correct their BoD look?

Selecting BoD members for anything other than the best available business, experience, professional and personal interest and connections would be embarassing. I find any point one way or the other about their race, sex or colour to be stomach turning.

So now we're rating Westjet on how politically correct their BoD look?

Selecting BoD members for anything other than the best available business, experience, professional and personal interest and connections would be embarassing. I find any point one way or the other about their race, sex or colour to be stomach turning.

Last time I checked, the business community includes more than just white males. All I am saying is that the BoD and Executives do not reflect reality. And as such, the point I noted is valid.

There wouldn't be any chance OP is female, would there?

There wouldn't be any chance OP is female, would there?

Where am I? What year is this? 1955? Did the family down the street just get "TV"?

What difference does that make?

This thread is about the diversity, or lack thereof, on the WestJet BOD and executive. Comments about other posters are not appropriate. Please confine your comments to the topic at hand. Thank you.

FewMiles..
Moderator, WestJet forum

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/August2004/12/c0852.html

So now we're rating Westjet on how politically correct their BoD look?

Selecting BoD members for anything other than the best available business, experience, professional and personal interest and connections would be embarassing. I find any point one way or the other about their race, sex or colour to be stomach turning.

So your suggesting that its not a problem WS was unable to find people of colour or women with those qualifications to be on their board? Since they're now aspiring to be a national airline they should be able to do better.

Last time I checked, the business community includes more than just white males. All I am saying is that the BoD and Executives do not reflect reality. And as such, the point I noted is valid.

What if the entire executive were filled with minorities and females, would still claim that Westjet execs do not reflect reality and is an emabarrasment?

Is the current BoD and Exec competent? Have they added value to the organization? Are they qualified for their positions? Do they have good character? These are the relevant questions to be asked, especially the first three. Does it really matter their race, religon, etc.?

Question for you Dodgy, how many of the 16 faces have you met and determined that any one of them are an embarrasment to the organization?

So now we're rating Westjet on how politically correct their BoD look?

Selecting BoD members for anything other than the best available business, experience, professional and personal interest and connections would be embarassing. I find any point one way or the other about their race, sex or colour to be stomach turning.
I'm against affirmative action too, but, how can we answer for the fact that less than 10% of Forbes500 companies are lead by women? Does that not make you think?

I don't see why this is in the WS forum, the white maleness of BoD's is prevalent across the board in all industries, except maybe non-profit and insurance.

I'm against affirmative action too, but, how can we answer for the fact that less than 10% of Forbes500 companies are lead by women? Does that not make you think?

1) Plain and simple, most women do not want a top job at a F500 company and would not take the challenge if offerred.

2) In a normal career lifespan, Chief Execs and Board members have minimum 15-20 years experience. While there is a round of female execs moving up the chain of command, the first wave is not expected to rise to the levels of public recognition for another 5-10 years. At a future date, the world might see a band of female exec willing to take the top job spot, or we might see a continuation of female execs chosing not progress into the public eye and maintain low profile jobs.

1) Plain and simple, most women do not want a top job at a F500 company and would not take the challenge if offerred.

2) In a normal career lifespan, Chief Execs and Board members have minimum 15-20 years experience. While there is a round of female execs moving up the chain of command, the first wave is not expected to rise to the levels of public recognition for another 5-10 years. At a future date, the world might see a band of female exec willing to take the top job spot, or we might see a continuation of female execs chosing not progress into the public eye and maintain low profile jobs.

In my opinion, this is an oppressive and offensive statement. In 1896 they were saying the same thing about woman not wanting to be involved in politics, so why should they get the vote.

What if the entire executive were filled with minorities and females, would still claim that Westjet execs do not reflect reality and is an emabarrasment?

Is the current BoD and Exec competent? Have they added value to the organization? Are they qualified for their positions? Do they have good character? These are the relevant questions to be asked, especially the first three. Does it really matter their race, religon, etc.?

Question for you Dodgy, how many of the 16 faces have you met and determined that any one of them are an embarrasment to the organization?

I've met 4, and on many occasions. The issue is not that those they have chosen are incompetent. The 4 I know do what they do very well.

My issue is the lack of diversity among those they have chosen. I do not, and will not, believe that there are not people of diversity out there who would be just as, or more, competent in the role of executive or BoD member.

....My issue is the lack of diversity among those they have chosen. ....
By raising the issue as you have done you show that you do not care who is on the board as long as some of them are women. I would guess that anything less than 50% and you would still be unhappy.

By raising the issue as you have done you show that you do not care who is on the board as long as some of them are women. I would guess that anything less than 50% and you would still be unhappy.

No.

There are 16 executives and BoD members. You argue that these are the best people, so who cares if it happens that they are all white males.

By that logic, then the "Best" person of diversity would be at the very most 17th on the list. And so that means that 94.1% of the "best" Executives and BoD members are white males.

My argument is that is not the case - and WestJet does not reflect reality.

Last time I checked, the business community includes more than just white males. All I am saying is that the BoD and Executives do not reflect reality. And as such, the point I noted is valid.

Validity is in the eye of the beholder.

IMHO, the composition of any subset of an organization with respect to the local, regional or national sex/race/ethnicity/etc/etc components is irrelevant for anything other than politics. And politics is not a valid basis upon which to make a point, IMHO.

So your suggesting that its not a problem WS was unable to find people of colour or women with those qualifications to be on their board? Since they're now aspiring to be a national airline they should be able to do better.

No, I am suggesting that making a judgement of any sort based upon the colour or sex of the board members is irrelevant. I'm presuming they picked the best people for the job to the best advantage of their shareholders, which is the only rational consideration.

My issue is the lack of diversity among those they have chosen. I do not, and will not, believe that there are not people of diversity out there who would be just as, or more, competent in the role of executive or BoD member.

The problem is that you see diversity of colour and sex as vital. However, those factors don't seem to have any empirical correlation as to capability to comment or advise effectively on the running of an airline. The only reason for considering the inclusion or exclusion of people with respect to skin colour or gender is purely political and as such is offensive to me.

What is more important would be to take a broader look at Westjet, its current employees, and employment practices as to how it does or doesn't discriminate.

No.

There are 16 executives and BoD members. You argue that these are the best people, so who cares if it happens that they are all white males.

By that logic, then the "Best" person of diversity would be at the very most 17th on the list. And so that means that 94.1% of the "best" Executives and BoD members are white males.

My argument is that is not the case - and WestJet does not reflect reality.

Faulty logic.

What it means is that the BoD is composed of the best people that were:

- available
- willing
- properly qualified

The above are the criteria for selecting people for a job, using skin colour or sex is an unlawful requirement except in very limited circumstances.

1) Plain and simple, most women do not want a top job at a F500 company and would not take the challenge if offerred.

2) In a normal career lifespan, Chief Execs and Board members have minimum 15-20 years experience. While there is a round of female execs moving up the chain of command, the first wave is not expected to rise to the levels of public recognition for another 5-10 years. At a future date, the world might see a band of female exec willing to take the top job spot, or we might see a continuation of female execs chosing not progress into the public eye and maintain low profile jobs.
Your reply answered my question

Plain and simple, women don't have ambition, even if they were offered.
1) "Women don't want power or influence, and won't want it if offered, simply because that's the way it goes"
2) "Males advance better becuase of some fluff that I can say to muddy up the waters of this discussion. Women don't want power or influence because I'm really good at giving really long answers that will bore you through their roundabout and redundant structure, circling around half-baked assumptions and my 1950 hegemonc masculine and heteronormative view on the world. But I'll just say this will change in a decade becuase it's always nice to shift things off saying the problem will solve itself, making me look informed and not as narrow minded as I really am. Because hey, we've been waiting for it to happen for, centuries now! We gotta be due and the only reason why women have been subjugated for decades is becuase they choose it for themselves."

Your reply answered my question

Plain and simple, women don't have ambition, even if they were offered.
1) "Women don't want power or influence, and won't want it if offered, simply because that's the way it goes"
2) "Males advance better becuase of some fluff that I can say to muddy up the waters of this discussion. Women don't want power or influence because I'm really good at giving really long answers that will bore you through their roundabout and redundant structure, circling around half-baked assumptions and my 1950 hegemonc masculine and heteronormative view on the world. But I'll just say this will change in a decade becuase it's always nice to shift things off saying the problem will solve itself, making me look informed and not as narrow minded as I really am. Because hey, we've been waiting for it to happen for, centuries now! We gotta be due and the only reason why women have been subjugated for decades is becuase they choose it for themselves."


I'm sure YEG Guy can defend himself, but I think your counter-attack is just a bit presumptuous of his world-view.

I do agree with YEG Guy that history limits the pool of qualified, executive-level females that exists in the business world today. Whether true, open choice is a factor in the current and future size of that pool is another question. However, I do believe it is equally presumptive to assume that women, in general, would make the same career choices as men. Such an assumption is often made with the view that women's choices are oppresively limited by child-bearing, family, and homemaking responsibilities while men are seen as totally free from such restrictions. I believe such a view holds a measure of truth but is a drastic oversimplification of reality.

The world is changing, particularly in the West, but I believe the solution is ensuring OPPORTUNITY is offered on an equal basis to all, not the creation of QUOTOS that artificially produce some idealized mix of male/female/colours/etc in every possible grouping. Suggesting that the Westjet BoD is an embarassment presumes that they should have applied a quoto system to selecting their board members. The idea that discrimination should be applied to correct previous discrimination just isn't rational IMHO.

Oh, while this has been an interesting debate, and I'll admit to playing a bit of devil's advocate, what got me "ticked-off" was the judgement passed upon the Westjet BoD without even considering the possibility that they may have asked several "diverse" candidates to sit on the Board but were turned down. Perhaps because the diversity pool is still somewhat small.

I'm sure YEG Guy can defend himself, but I think your counter-attack is just a bit presumptuous of his world-view.

I do agree with YEG Guy that history limits the pool of qualified, executive-level females that exists in the business world today. Whether true, open choice is a factor in the current and future size of that pool is another question. However, I do believe it is equally presumptive to assume that women, in general, would make the same career choices as men. Such an assumption is often made with the view that women's choices are oppresively limited by child-bearing, family, and homemaking responsibilities while men are seen as totally free from such restrictions. I believe such a view holds a measure of truth but is a drastic oversimplification of reality.

The world is changing, particularly in the West, but I believe the solution is ensuring OPPORTUNITY is offered on an equal basis to all, not the creation of QUOTOS that artificially produce some idealized mix of male/female/colours/etc in every possible grouping. Suggesting that the Westjet BoD is an embarassment presumes that they should have applied a quoto system to selecting their board members. The idea that discrimination should be applied to correct previous discrimination just isn't rational IMHO.

Oh, while this has been an interesting debate, and I'll admit to playing a bit of devil's advocate, what got me "ticked-off" was the judgement passed upon the Westjet BoD without even considering the possibility that they may have asked several "diverse" candidates to sit on the Board but were turned down. Perhaps because the diversity pool is still somewhat small.
Definately, affirmative action really is off base, and I don't see how a Calgary based BoD being all white is this horrible thing that means 1/5 board members should be women, simply because they're women. I'm not trying to say there is one reason why there are fewer women BoD, but making assumptions like "women just don't want a higher position" is just ludicrous.

Definately, affirmative action really is off base, and I don't see how a Calgary based BoD being all white is this horrible thing that means 1/5 board members should be women, simply because they're women. I'm not trying to say there is one reason why there are fewer women BoD, but making assumptions like "women just don't want a higher position" is just ludicrous.

Agreed. Oh my gawd.

The person who is best qualified for the job will get the job. Period.

Agreed. Oh my gawd.

The person who is best qualified for the job will get the job. Period.

And you're out in the boonies somewhere........makes sense to me

And you're out in the boonies somewhere........makes sense to me
And Liberal Ontario is what?

Southwest's President and Chief Operating Officer, Colleen Barrett, happens to be female. Southwest Airlines also happens to be the most profitable and successful airline in North America (and probably also in the Western Hemisphere).

One would hope WestJet could benefit from the talents of the best managers, regardless of their genders or other personal attributes not related to talent. WestJet's current situation suggests that may not be the case.

Where in the post does the OP question the ability of the WS BOD? He is merely pointing out how overwhelmingly white and male it is.

For an airline that likes to portray itself a the populist choice, it is surprising that it is so badly refective of Canadian society 9especially for a company dealing in such a high profile consumer commodity. If those of you with your knickers in a twist are saying there are no women or visible minorities qualified to sit on their board (or AC's) then as a country we have a problem.

LeSabre74 makes a very good point.

Where in the post does the OP question the ability of the WS BOD? He is merely pointing out how overwhelmingly white and male it is.

To use the word embarrasing to describe the BoD and Exec ranks pretty much questions the abilities of the people listed. Race and Gender are not suposed to be factors in the job qualification process. Analyze the people all you want, but they can't be knocked for being all white the same as an all Hispanic (example) executive.

For an airline that likes to portray itself a the populist choice, it is surprising that it is so badly refective of Canadian society 9especially for a company dealing in such a high profile consumer commodity..

THe airline is reflective of Canadian society in that the 5000 strong team pulls from all accross Canada. Don't judge the Westjet based on 1 or 16 people just as we shouldn't judge ACE based upon their Officer ranks (which is surprising similiar in content to WestJet). What's the view at Jazz with Randall etal?

WestJet does have female Executive VP's. There is a second pool of EVPs that are not considered public officers. There are also groups of VPs and Directors, these groups have females and visible minorities as well.

If those of you with your knickers in a twist are saying there are no women or visible minorities qualified to sit on their board (or AC's) then as a country we have a problem.

I am not saying that "there are no women or visible minorities qualified to sit on their board", rather the pool of female candidates is much smaller than to male candidates. This isn't so much an assumption but a fact (Corporate Governance and BoD composition/analysis is part of my job description) and also there is empircal evidence to sugest that a lot more females don't want a high profile job such as what is being discussed. For public evidence, look at the current search for Alberta Conservative and Federal Liberal leader contenders.

For the people who say that senior executive ranks should be reflective of Canadian society and/or have a diversity quotient, I counter that there are valid reasons as to the curent status. Further, changing the current status we must determine whether a sufficient pool of "targetted" candidates exist that are willing to assume the position.

... Race and Gender are not suposed to be factors in the job qualification process.....
Nor age.

I got mine yesterday.... take a look on the inside back cover.

Notice some things missing among the BofD and Executives?

Hint: It isn't white males.

Kinda shameful.

d
:td:
Yes, I noticed the same thing! Not a single one of the men pictured is wearing a tie. The same is true for the picture of the Corporate Executive Council in the latest General Electric annual report. I guess the casual look is the "in" style this year.

Yes, I noticed the same thing! Not a single one of the men pictured is wearing a tie. The same is true for the picture of the Corporate Executive Council in the latest General Electric annual report. I guess the casual look is the "in" style this year.

The wetjet execs would look too up tight in ties and since the stock isn't doing anything they had to give the impression of things being cool and relaxed. Lies, I tell ya.

The wetjet execs would look too up tight in ties and since the stock isn't doing anything they had to give the impression of things being cool and relaxed. Lies, I tell ya.
In Calgary a tie is something made out of string that one wears for ten days in July. (or with a pink shirt) :)

...I am not saying that "there are no women or visible minorities qualified to sit on their board", rather the pool of female candidates is much smaller than to male candidates. This isn't so much an assumption but a fact (Corporate Governance and BoD composition/analysis is part of my job description) and also there is empircal evidence to sugest that a lot more females don't want a high profile job such as what is being discussed. For public evidence, look at the current search for Alberta Conservative and Federal Liberal leader contenders.

For the people who say that senior executive ranks should be reflective of Canadian society and/or have a diversity quotient, I counter that there are valid reasons as to the curent status. Further, changing the current status we must determine whether a sufficient pool of "targetted" candidates exist that are willing to assume the position.

Eeven if I bought your line on the issue of women on the board (which I don't) it doesn't explain the absence of minorities. Note, I am not arguing AC is any better. However, for an airline claiming "national" status, it seems odd that 8 of the 10 WS BOD are white men from Alberta.

PS Arguing "valid reasons for the current status" is never an acceptable answer for not changing the status quo.

In Calgary a tie is something made out of string that one wears for ten days in July. (or with a pink shirt) :)

That and cowboys don't wear ties when they work hard on a ranch too. I know as I live on one. ;)

Sanosuke!

In Calgary a tie is something made out of string that one wears for ten days in July. (or with a pink shirt) :)

True enough.....I like the pink shirt idea though for WJA employees

Eeven if I bought your line on the issue of women on the board (which I don't) it doesn't explain the absence of minorities. Note, I am not arguing AC is any better. However, for an airline claiming "national" status, it seems odd that 8 of the 10 WS BOD are white men from Alberta.

PS Arguing "valid reasons for the current status" is never an acceptable answer for not changing the status quo.
Why should a company need to fill a BoD strictly on the basis of being politically correct? This is not a Federal Government department. Would WestJet be a better airline if they had a Black or Asian or Inuit on their board (or heaven forbid someone from Toronto)?

The BoD at WestJet is one of the things that I admire about WestJet. They are all tough and knowledgeable and they keep Clive and his in-bred crew in-line.

[QUOTE=YEG Guy]To use the word embarrasing to describe the BoD and Exec ranks pretty much questions the abilities of the people listed. Race and Gender are not suposed to be factors in the job qualification process. Analyze the people all you want, but they can't be knocked for being all white the same as an all Hispanic (example) executive.


Embarrassing Annual Report
I got mine yesterday.... take a look on the inside back cover.

Notice some things missing among the BofD and Executives?

Hint: It isn't white males.

Kinda shameful.

d



I was simply observing that there was a lack of diversity among the executives and BoD. I commented that this lack of diversity was "embarrassing" and "shameful".

I did not, and am not, commenting on the ability of the people in these positions, I am commenting on the lack of diversity among their ranks.

Why should a company need to fill a BoD strictly on the basis of being politically correct? This is not a Federal Government department. Would WestJet be a better airline if they had a Black or Asian or Inuit on their board (or heaven forbid someone from Toronto)?

The BoD at WestJet is one of the things that I admire about WestJet. They are all tough and knowledgeable and they keep Clive and his in-bred crew in-line.

Who said they had to? but they should try. Seems like we've got some touchy white Albertan males here ;) Since the baord is there to advise etc. there should be a broader perspective. Especially in a company involved in such a "public" industry, and one that is claiming to be a credible national airline.

Who said they had to? but they should try. Seems like we've got some touchy white Albertan males here Since the baord is there to advise etc. there should be a broader perspective. Especially in a company involved in such a "public" industry, and one that is claiming to be a credible national airline.

So you have to have females or visual minorities to have a "broader persective"?

I hate to break it to you but BOD's are not exactly front-and-center to the "public".

So you have to have females or visual minorities to have a "broader persective"?

I hate to break it to you but BOD's are not exactly front-and-center to the "public".

Whatever. If people don't see the impression it sends, you're never going to get it.

You'd think when you spend a lot of money to send a document like the Annual Report out to the shareholders, it does put the directors in the public eye. I'm sure they're all qualified competent men, but they're representative of a pretty narrow segment of WS customer base. I would never argue that private companies should be forced to include a certain percentage of minorities or women on their BOD, but they should do their utmost to try.

Whatever. If people don't see the impression it sends, you're never going to get it.
... I would never argue that private companies should be forced to include a certain percentage of minorities or women on their BOD, but they should do their utmost to try.

I think that many of the other posters on this thread, including myself, understand the point completely, we just don't agree that the impression is significant nor that the rationale for making an issue out of the BoD's image is anything more than politics. There is also an implicit assumption that Westjet made no attempt whatsoever to broaden the "look" of their Board. The reactionary comments with respect to the BoD by some posters make it obvious that anything other than a quoto system for female/minority representation would never satisfy them.

How about if Westjet just went out and purchased a few pictures of people to include with the pictures of the rest of the Board? They just never get invited to the meetings. Would that be enough?

this has to be the most pathetic excuse to complain about Westjet I've seen yet.

this has to be the most pathetic excuse to complain about Westjet I've seen yet.

Why? are you a stodgy old white guy?

Why are you racists towards white people? Dagger, is that you?

easy...

Ali G, when interviewing Andy Rooney, put it best:

Yoz, you be racialist to me coz I'm black!

http://www.yourdailymedia.com/post/1129733310