Should companies be forced to have more women on their boards?(52 Posts)
We were fascinated to see Vince Cable, Business Secretary, saying in his Mumsnet webchat today that he's taking steps to tackle companies who don't have women on their boards.
Vince posted: "We're making a lot of progress on implementing the recommendations for significantly higher levels of female representation on company boards. The numbers are better and we're on track to meet the 25% target by 2015.
"I'm chasing up companies which have women-free boards and had a leading mining company chief executive in my office just this week, answering my questions as to why they hadn't made more progress.
"There are genuine issues about long-term executive pipelines for women which we're tackling through shared parental leave, amongst other policies."
What do you think? Why are there, apparently, still so many barriers to women at board level? Should there be more positive discrimination for women - even measures to force companies to recruit women to their board? Are there enough women aiming to get onto the board of a big company - and, if not, why not? If you are already on a board, what's it like and would you recommend it to other women?
We'd love to know your thoughts...
Perhaps there should be substantial fines levied against large companies who are failing to promote women to board or senior positions.
Proceeds from fines to be diverted into family friendly programmes, childcare facilities, flexible and part time working schemes.
Fines could be progressively increased year on year if the imbalance isn't addressed. And reduced if companies actually provide evidence of their own investment and commitment to such programmes.
"As society evolves", "as labour evolves"
At a snail's pace.
Men are not going to address their privilege unless they are aware of their privilege. Which the majority isn't, and they continue to hire in their own image. Many think they got where they are by merit only, even when they are all for equality. I think even the majority of women are not aware of their inferior position in society, or think it doesn't apply to them as they have "chosen" their smaller career. Feminists (m/f) are only a minority.
If we have to wait for society "to evolve" without intervention we'll have to wait a long time for equality. It is simple really, if we are serious about equality there will have to be more drastic measures.
Responsibility is wrong - acknowledgement, maybe. But the men in question should also acknowledge their benefit, I think.
Financially speaking, there's a point on the returns graph of childcare costs, long term prospective earnings of both partners, one vs two tax bands etc etc where having one partner SAH is an economically rational choice.
I don't think there is one, Numberlock.
As society evolves, maybe there will be more women with SAHD partners who act the same, or more of those men we are seeing will have partners with equal careers and will be sorting childcare half the week.
As labour evolves, maybe men and women working flexibly will be more accepted "at the top".
I do think NED roles are a good place to start on boards as they are automatically part time so some of the issues are covered that way.
So what's the answer, Doctrine?
Do the wives of these types have to take some responsibility for enabling this unlimited access to work problem which, let's face it is the real issue?
Because I can't see any incentive or motivation for these men to change of their own volition.
Exactly, Numberlock, exactly.
Yes because it isn't changing of its own accord and frankly, I don't want to wait a millennia for equality. As has been said before, men have benefitted from discrimination for a very long time.
By the way....men are not baffled by women. The truth is that some men just hate women and if one of those men is at the top of an organisation no women will get to the board. Simple as that. It only takes one 'woman hating man' to black ball a potential female board candidate.
I really do want people to stop making excuses about this.
I used to think that quotas for women on Boards was a bad idea because I thought that the sex discrimination laws we have would allow more women to rise on merit to the very top.
That very clearly has not happened and I was wrong and I now strongly believe we need quotas. I am a man and reported directly into board members in my last job. My DW also regularly advised boards of multinationals. I can tell you that the reason women don't get on the board is because MEN stop them and not because women aren,t up to the job or don't want it. It is very simple. Men at the top routinely discriminate against women and promote other men who are friends and associates. I've seen it happen and it is absolutely blatant.
Sorry but it is true and it is MEN who promote other useless MEN onto boards instead of promoting women who are better qualified.
I know 3 women trying to get non executive positions in the hope that they might eventually get enough experience to take full executive positions. They always get turned down because a MAN gets chosen who already has a board position.
We need quotas. There is obviously a quota for men which means 90% of board seats have to be filled by a MAN - why can't it just be a 50:50 quota instead of 90:10?
(And numberlock has a point, I know families where the high-flying career Daddy has never, ever, looked after his children on his own - if his wife is ever out or away he gets his Mum down to 'help out'. Pathetic. Yet someone is paying this guy a six-figure salary and, according to financial pages, a very hefty bonus - yet he's incapable of managing a toddler and two small children, apparently.)
I think quotas are necessary because asking nicely and pointing out the facts just does not work.
You still get people - women, even - saying 'oh, I'm opposed to quotas because appointments should be on merit'. Missing the point so badly! Appointments are not on merit now, clearly - unless you believe all women are thicker than all men - and the only way to redress that seems to be quotas. Without them, we'll be waiting another 100 years for parity and our granddaughters will probably still be fighting for a fair chance.
Why's it the company's or government's responsibility to make childcare easier? In my experience its the men that I'm in direct competition with who refuse to play an active role in bringing up their own kids that cause the problem. Childcare issues are irrelevant, they never do any.
The problem with addressing the issue through childcare/flexible working (although obviously that needs addressing) is the lag period. If most boards (in my experience) are predominantly staffed with males of 50 plus, how long would it take women (once the flexible working and childcare is sorted) to catch up?
There needs to be more positive action in some way to make Boards look beyond their normal network sooner when recruiting.
EATmum, I wouldn't flame you. Your examples shows how it should be. In a gender balanced environment, from bottom to top, the need for positive action will disappear.
But how do we get there?
I can't see it happening in the next 50 years, perhaps a hundred years, if it continues at the rate is does now. While I agree with you that childcare has a lot to do with it, I don't see the political will to make drastic changes there either. So we'll need other strategies to make it happen.
No no no. I really hate positive discrimination.
Companies should make it easier to be a woman and have a high level job. With flexible working, better childcare options etc. (Availablebto all, not just women). Then the situation would sort itself out.
I work in a senior management role in a team that is extremely well gender-balanced. Gender is really not a factor, and that reflects the fact that the middle management team is also well-balanced.
I personally think that the root to the problem is the cost of childcare, and that the govt should focus their efforts there rather than quotas for senior roles. If capable people take themselves out of the workplace not through choice, but because they can't afford to work, they won't get the opportunity to build the networks, and gain the experience and qualifications, that help to progress to board level. Sexism may still exist, but if there is a balanced pool of candidates (not enforced inclusions in the shortlist) it is harder for people to justify a discriminatory decision.
Before I'm flamed, I'm not at all making comment on men or women who choose to raise families - I'm just aware of many people who stop working because they can't afford the costs of working - childcare, train/bus fares, other expenses.
My organisation pays a contribution to childcare costs for all staff with children under age 5.
Yes (slightly reluctantly)
It would be lovely if we could trust that everyone would get into positions of power solely on merit but it just doesn't happen that way. Take a long hard look at our dear Government for example. I think the only way that things will start to change for women in the workplace is if there are more women around. I think it's also essential that parents are able to share the majority of maternity/paternity leave between them - the only way some people will be convinced that maternity leave is not just an extended holiday is if men start to take similar amounts of time off for parenting reasons.
ItsYoni, I'm curious - id that in multiple companies or just your current employer?
If the employer is not providing eg guidance, training, warnings where necessary to women as well as men, why is that? It does nobody any favours, including the women if there was something they could do to improve.
I don't believe that any company would appoint somebody in a position if they thought they couldn't do the job, whether male/female, black/white able/disabled. Also it is not often the case that there is only one suitable candidate for a position. I think quota would force companies to actively consider female/black/disabled candidates who would otherwise be dismissed too easily, unconsciously for the wrong reasons. I wouldn't want people appointed solely for being black/female/disabled, but I doubt that that is what would happen anyway. They would have to be able to do the job. Thing is, often when somebody who is not able to do their job (it happens) the ones that are black/female/disabled suddenly become representative of their group, and taken as a reason why hiring somebody black/female/disabled doesn't work. When men don't succeed, there is no such sentiment. They happily employ the next man, without giving it a second thought.
Creeping - just to confirm...you want positive discrimination, so you want women because they are women, black people because they are black people, blind people because they are blind people, tall people because they are tall people.
Is that what you want?
Well as a female in one of the rather low tier jobs in a male dominated industry (are you still with me?) I can tell you that I witness women getting off with unbelievable business and personal weaknesses, because they are women.
Of course there are men who are absolutely shit at their jobs too, but that is often recognised and usually dealt with.
I'm speaking from personal experience and I think it will be a terrible day if we have to have a quota of genders in management.
Something needs to happen or we'll be having this discussion in 50 years time still. Positive discrimination as a policy has been in the offing since the 80s. We're 30 years on talking about it and nothing much has changed.
People that think that "the best person for the job" is some sort of objective value-free criterium are deluded.
"I'm a bit bored of women using their gender as an excuse."
What that means is, "I'm a bit bored of women pretending that the only reason they don't get do as well in life as men is because of systemic sexism, when everyone knows it's purely and simply because they're inferior to men."
That's what that means.
Some of these posts have really made me laugh - the sexist notion that you wouldn't have respect for a woman on the board if she got there by quota, but you're perfectly happy to respect a man who has got there because he's had an inbuilt advantage (maleness) to enable him to get there. This thing of jobs should not be given because of what's between your legs - but they already are! Men make it to the top more than women do, purely and simply because every single structure and practice from the time they are born to the time they die, advantages them unfairly in comparison to women. If you don't believe that, then you're with Coolstorybro and basically, you just think that women are probably shit and men are simply superior. Lots of people think that deep down, but aren't really aware of thinking it because it's never phrased outright like that, it's just implied.
No. It should be the right person for the job, certainly not positive discrimination. That does no-one any favours.
Yes. The argument that women should get there on merit implies that all the old, white men who currently populate the majority of boards in the country got there on merit and that the fact that there are so few women is that women are somehow short on merit.
Or could it be that they're old boys clubs who appoint their mates and shut women and ethnic minorities out? Could it be that an intervention like quotas is needed in order to change the existing men-only culture?
Join the discussion
Please login first.