Help me explain why having women in senior roles matters

The problem with 'merit' based approaches - and I say this as someone who works hard to live them in my own work - is that measuring merit is an inherently subjective affair.

In the context of gender, one of the more obvious complications is that women, as a general rule, will often understate achievements and credit team effort when compared with men. And that, given that men are generally considered the default case, we as managers tend to therefore miss female high performance because it may not correspond to what we would expect to see in a star employee. This can be addressed in highly effective ways but will normally depend on managers being trained to spot the symptoms of 'female overachiever syndrome'.

And, on a side note, can I just say how much I hate this stupid notion of the 'best person for the job'? All that's required is a 'good enough' person for any given job. The additional benefits of them being the best have to be weighed up against all other relevant considerations. That's just basic management skills (and a regular rant trigger for me).

Believeitornot
Yes it would be, if the reshuffle is based on merit: ability and skills. It should not matter at all what race the individuals are, it should only matter that the best are in the roles
and you would be very naive to think that it really works this way.

Where did I say that I think it really works that way?

Sounds like your boss has put in place the people he thinks are best for the various roles. It's his job to do that. He may or may not have got it right, but you are asking him to put in place other people who are not the people whom he thinks would be best.

Please can you explain to me why it would be right to turf out the people who are best for these roles and put in place other people who are not the best for these roles?

If you jus t think he got it wrong about someone that's different - but that's not what you are saying.

Yes it would be, if the reshuffle is based on merit: ability and skills. It should not matter at all what race the individuals are, it should only matter that the best are in the roles

and you would be very naive to think that it really works this way.

Great post, BB

Fosterdog123
Flowerpot - thats a really outdated way of looking at things and very blinkered.

Why precisely?

Some good articles / data source here:

www.womenonboards.net/en-GB/Resources/Career-and-Leadership/Articles

Flowerpot - thats a really outdated way of looking at things and very blinkered.

I'm a woman manager in a very male dominated field and my firm - certainly not a touchy-feely social justice operation but one of those scary multinationals - has recently introduced quotas for hiring and hard targets for getting women into leadership roles.

Our official line is very much based on economic arguments rather than on feminism or diversity having intrinsic value in a broader sense. In a nutshell, it goes about like this:

Our business depends on attracting the very brightest talent (this part may be somewhat industry specific - but it translates reasonably well IMO), some 50 percent of which, statistically speaking, will consist of women. We also face some extremely stiff competition for these people - other firms need them just as much as we do. The fact that we don't have many women at all and even fewer in senior positions makes us look like a poor work environment for female employees and we're losing on hiring candidates who could otherwise be the future rising stars of this firm.

Studies show (will find link if needed, on mobile at present) that it takes about 30 percent of the total before any minority group will reach a level at which they feel represented and not like the exception. Therefore, we need to heavily invest now to reach at least this share of women employees in order to be able to access this talent pool by default going forward.

The same logic applies to having women in leadership positions. Furthermore, there is a multitude of data to show that more diverse teams outperform homogenous ones at every single level of seniority and in virtually every respect (again, will dig up references on request).

Bottom line, we simply can't afford NOT to have more women in the workforce in general and also in senior roles. It might work now but is threatening to cripple our business going forward.

That's obviously a very abridged version of how we have opted to frame this, but the argument is basically solid. It also has the advantage of appealing to cold, hard economic interests as opposed to some hard to define sentiment of 'justice', which - let's be frank, only ever has intrinsic business value if your client base cares enough (which it won't in this setting; like I said, this is Megacorp Ltd rather than HippieParadise.com).

Men are more likely to have long-term illnesses and die sooner than women, so I probably wouldn’t employ them TBH. They’ll only go and get a disease on me. Until men stop being ill, they’ll never get to where women are. Yes I know it’s illogical because not all men will fall ill, but it fits my sexist narrative, so there.

In my original post I was just trying to point out that women will never be equal in the workplace as they often leave to have children. This is a fact and cannot ever change!

This is not what you said. You effectively said you wouldn’t hire someone of child bearing age in a senior role.

Yep. You'd think someone in a senior hiring role would have had many discussions along that line and be quite well educated on it by now, wouldn't you.

"Until men can go through pregnancy and give birth then, no, women won't be equal in the workplace!"

Clearly you can't think of any other way to achieve equality. I can as can many others!

Fosterdog123
Would it be ok if he 'reshuffled' and notably and visibly moved most of the black people in an organisation out of key roles and put white people in their place?

Yes it would be, if the reshuffle is based on merit: ability and skills. It should not matter at all what race the individuals are, it should only matter that the best are in the roles.

The role model 'argument' is meaningless - no matter how much the PC lobby claims that seeing people of identical race/size/sex etc in management roles suddenly creates a desire that wasn't already there, it's a load of nonsense. Unfortunately by coming out with that line, and even worse the "being seen to be doing it" line, you've set yourself back.

There are several studies which show that women in senior management teams results in a higher performing team. Just google them. This is evidence. But what you cannot do is use this evidence and say "any woman" in that team. The woman - of course, as should the men - must be deserving and good enough to be there in the first place. If there are women in your company who you can demonstrate deserve to be senior, then ask why they haven't been promoted. If there are not, then they shouldn't be promoted. Instead ask why the company is not recruiting or developing strong candidates.

Until men can go through pregnancy and give birth then, no, women won't be equal in the workplace!

Matilda, if you just blithely accept that women will never be equal in the workplace then I'm afraid you're part of the problem and not the solution.

OP, I don't think your boss is one of the good ones sadly. If he was, he'd already be clued up about this. Has he been living under a rock? What do you mean, he's reshuffled and there are now fewer women in key roles? Has he actually changed people's jobs? Id actually protest, formally if need be. Would it be ok if he 'reshuffled' and notably and visibly moved most of the black people in an organisation out of key roles and put white people in their place?

It wasn't a question. If you believe that, and you're not lying about your job, then you are not a good hiring manager and you're also not a good person.

No - definitely not lying! In my original post I was just trying to point out that women will never be equal in the workplace as they often leave to have children. This is a fact and cannot ever change!

If this is true:

Yes, men can have parental leave but in my honest opinion children need their mums!

Then by definition you're lying about at least one of these:

yes, I do have a role whereby I can hire and fire senior managers!

I am very good at my job

Again, though, based on how you write and come across I don't believe either is true.

" I also didn't say that other women should be denied getting high paid jobs -"

Yes you did!

I also didn't say that other women should be denied getting high paid jobs

Erm, that’s exactly what you said. In case she gets pregnant.

I hardly think my posts are rambling! I also didn't say that other women should be denied getting high paid jobs - I just said that I can understand why there aren't as many women in senior positions as men! And yes, I do have a role whereby I can hire and fire senior managers!