Sir, – It is disappointing that Maura Quinn, chief executive of the Institute of Directors, considers the idea of Diaspora appointments to State boards as “flawed” (Business, April 7th), especially as it relates to the areas of innovation, jobs and enterprise. Her argument is flawed on several levels.
First, to suggest that candidates be assessed against a skills and competencies framework (rather than Diaspora membership) is simply stating the obvious – this applies to all candidates from all backgrounds.
Second, to refer to overseas physical location as a practical reason not to appoint (“they could not travel regularly to attend board meetings in Ireland”) is unbalanced – the reverse is also true since there is a lot of merit in having board members in close proximity to local markets, customers, competitors, suppliers and government regulators.
Third, to suggest that “Ireland needed to be conscious of the ‘optics’ of courting overseas executives, as it tacitly implied a lack of suitably qualified people in Ireland” is also unbalanced – the reverse is also true because diverse board membership sends a strong message of self-confidence for any small open economy trying to punch above its weight on the international stage.
Unfortunately, Ms Quinn’s overall argument is framed in an “either or” manner. The intention of the original idea from the Silicon Valley-based Irish Technology Leadership Group is to simply bring together the best of Ireland’s business talent, home and away. This surely has a lot of merit given the times we live in.
Finally, it is disturbing to read that “the institute does not accept that seeking fresh overseas talent with experience of business in foreign markets is necessary, or even advisable”.
I suggest the Institute of Directors reflect on the “optics” of this statement towards potential overseas customers, partners and investors in Irish companies seeking international growth. – Yours, etc,