The European Union is pushing a proposal which would require company boards to be made up of at least 40 per cent women. It appears agreeing with the proposal has stirred a very diverse range of reactions.
Positive discrimination is illegal in the UK so assuming the quota goes ahead; there will have to be a review of British law. The debate seems to be very intense, with Britain leading the countries that regard the proposed rule as counterproductive and unworkable.
“Yet many companies and boards still seem to be unprepared for the tide, or else to be awaiting proof that it is good for business, before they address the issue seriously.” (A. Wittenberg-cox & A. Maitland)
A poll conducted by Management Today asked 317 individuals ‘Are you in favour of the 40% minimum quota for women on boards?’ Of those who responded, 66% said they were not in favour of the quota whilst the remaining third (34%), said that they would prefer to see a quota in place.
Arguments in favour of this quota include the need for more effective gender equality and quotas are potentially the next logical step in closing the gender gap. Implementing quotas would ensure that change actually happens. Surely an initiative which equips women for board positions can only be a positive thing? The objective for promoting more women to the boardroom should be more than a ‘tick the box’ exercise in demonstrating diversity. Surely a board with diversity provides a better understanding of the organisations customers and teams, avoids so called ‘group think’ and encourages a wider scope of creative thought.
“Executive committees and corporate boards composed of white men between the ages of 50 and 65 – often of the same nationality, sometimes with the same educational background – may not be best equipped to deal with so much cultural diversity and complexity.” (A. Wittenberg-cox & A. Maitland)
My personal take on this latest positively discriminating jargon is that its quite insulting! Women who choose to be successful will be. I’ve been fortunate enough to meet and interview a number of very successful, inspirational women who made it to the top of their sector. One of which agreed to be interviewed for a university paper, which looked at this subject exactly. I was pleased to hear that her opinions mirrored mine exactly and it’s my understanding that women, although the rarer of the two breeds in management roles are equally capable of achieving boardroom status. More often than not woman reach a comfortable peak of success in their 30’s and this coincides with family commitments. Perhaps women are happy to work up until this point and then feel satisfied in their career aspirations and decide to move on to that new and exciting role of ‘Mum’? Equally, those women who decide that a family isn’t a priority can continue to climb the career ladder as long as they want to. Just because the female of the species doesn’t feel the need to argue their way in to or brag about a title or a status doesn’t mean they’re incapable, we’re more than capable. Perhaps this male dominated sector isn’t ready to speak womenomics just yet. I feel the whole thing has been blown out of proportion and this quota only seeks to bridge the gap further.
“Fortune 500 companies. It found that the group of companies with the highest average representation of women in their top management teams significantly outperformed those with the lowest average representation.” (A. Wittenberg-cox & A. Maitland)
Just saying!
I’d be really interested in hearing your thoughts on this… How effective would quotas be in bringing diversity and do we need it? Thanks.
Sophie.
The Bigger Picture 
The job should go to the best candidate, irrespective of gender, age, colour etc. The focus should be on ensuring women get the opportunity to be the best candidate by helping them balance career and family commitments.
I have to agree Katrina… What use are quota to any organisation if the candidates can’t deliver on skill. The whole thing sets organisations up for crisis and poor management if the jobs are handed out simply to make up the numbers. Thanks for comments!
I am strongly against quotas as it opens women on boards to the accusation that they were only appointed to satisfy a quota and their abilities could be explicitly or implicitly questioned. Furthermore, quotas could actually be counterproductive, causing women that could bring a wealth of knowledge, experience and new insights to hesitate to be associated with a board position and open themselves to that sort of criticism. Accordingly, the position should always be offered to the best candidate.
Discrimination of any form, whether positive or negative, is totally unacceptable. It should definitely be a case of best man (or woman) for the job. I do not have any statistics to prove this, but surely the problem arises because the universe of suitably qualified and experienced candidates is dominated by males. Echoing Katrina’s point, a high proportion of potentially suitable women abandon their careers to start a family.
Thank you Andrew for your comment! You share exactly the same view as I do. As long as a board is made up of suitable individuals for the roles and responsibilities, than surely gender is completely irrelevant. I find the quotas quite laughable and can’t see any real evidence to suggest they work!
Keep checking up on the latest posts, your comments are appreciated! 🙂
I do not agree with the quota. There should be no gender discrimination and be solely based on ability. If that person is nominated to sit on the board then it should be because they are the best person to support and help direct the company. Whether or not that person is male or female should not make a difference.
I don not agree with gender discrimination, if the board room is full of all men or all women it does not matter as long as you have the best people for the job.
I do believe currently there are too few women in top management positions and this does need to change, but I do not agree with quotas. It would lead to resentment and the best candidate should always be offered the job regardless of whether they are male or female.
Thank you for your comment Jade, I agree with you entirely. Surely there is very little reason to interview candidates if the premeditated agenda is to employ based on gender anyway! Do you think though, that there might be more incentive for women to take on management/board roles if more was done to support their out of work commitments, such as families? I can’t help but think that the reason for the divide is down to a lack of interest from women in these positions. They require more time, responsibility and commitment, many women would probably be put off by this if they have children. On the other hand I think those women who choose their career and decide not to have a family have and deserve every opportunity they get to make it to the top table.
I think introducing quotas deserves serious consideration. It would be a ‘paradigm-breaking’ move. Yes, people will say that people will say women got the job purely because the quota existed but this will be a short term issue which will quickly go away, as women finally prove that they are at least as good as men – and in many instances are even better! The sad reality is that even really excellent women candidates for senior positions, simply are not given the chance to join senior leadership teams and it’s got nothing to do with whether they choose to have a family or not. That is too simplistic an explanation. The culture and history of many middle aged, white, male-dominated organisations means that women are literally invisible when a leadership position becomes available. Research shows we tend to like people who are most like ourself and in job interviews, this bias has been proved. Ergo, Boards will choose candidates who mirror most closely candidates who are like themselves. A vicious circle is created. How do we know the best candidate was appointed, if there is is an inbuilt bias at work? It is rather naive to assume that because a person is appointed to a position it is purely based on merit. We hope that is the case, but sadly, over 30 years experience in senior management positions has taught me that many many factors are weigh in these situations: ability is not always the deciding factor!
Surprisingly, I also believe that a quota would in fact give organisations a justifiable way that they could do what many of them say they want to do (ie appoint more women senior leaders) but simply do not know HOW to do that, because they don’t know how to begin it and explain it. As a consultant working with organisations on culture change I know this is a real life issue. They want to change but are ‘stuck’. Providing them with a legislated ‘licence to act’ will cause some turmoil initially, but in the end, I believe it will benefit all concerned.