Why is equality so elusive in the boardroom?

[nasdaq]

revealed the gender gap in British Business

Anyone out there a Female Director?

I believe that unless pay equality is addressed then women will not be equal.

Anyone have any thoughts?

I worked with Male Directors who had fantastic work life balance - leaving early on Fridays, off to play golf and have long lunches whenever it fancied them.

I worked with a very few Directors who promoted women.

Interestingly all 3 of these Directors had women partners who had full time jobs, and were educated, and powerful in their relationships.

With 2 Directors having no issue with women being hired and promoted - I managed (as I was hiring them) to get 20% of the company to be female and in good positions.

One female got on the executive board.

I have since left, as have the 2 Directors and guess what... the inequality has more or less returned?

Yes I think you are correct, however at my coy I was allowed to provide intensive interview training, this helped people counter some prejudices.

I am not always sure about quotas.

I think that if you get to position of power in your organisation, then you are much more able to request flexible working or whatever you want.

It is much harder if you are starting out.

I am a female director... but I set up my own company to work flexibly - i.e. I = the company!

Have you see the Women for Board Initiative.

Yep - equal pay needed.

I think that it is important to have more paternity leave plus incentives/culture which expects men to take substantial paternity leave - i.e. at least 2 months.

This then removes the perceived "issue" that women will be taking career breaks and also leads to more co-parenting and men opting for flexible working (be it formal or informal - i.e. covering child's sickness).

This article in the NY Times explains the Swedish model. (Don't be put off by the article title!).

"Sweden, he said, faced a vicious circle. Women continued to take parental leave not just for tradition?s sake but because their pay was often lower, thus perpetuating pay differences. Companies, meanwhile, made clear to men that staying home with baby was not compatible with a career."

"But laws reserving at least two months of the generously paid, 13-month parental leave exclusively for fathers ? a quota that could well double after the September election ? have set off profound social change."

" A study published by the Swedish Institute of Labor Market Policy Evaluation in March showed, for instance, that a mother?s future earnings increase on average 7 percent for every month the father takes leave."

I am also convinced of the need for quotas - due to the like recruiting like phenomenen.

The new corporate governance code is a very small move in that direction:

"The code states for the first time that listed companies, when searching for, or appointing directors, must ?pay due regard for the benefits of diversity on the board, including gender?.

Article here.

I am aimng to be a non-exec director in the future. I am trying to gain various experiences which will help me reach this goal and working part time for myself gives me the opportunity to do this.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the following:

"Women prevent/block other women from progressing."

I had a conversation with a good (male) friend who is a partner in a smallish law firm. He recounted some fairly eye-opening/hair-raising tales of women partners's attitudes to their female staff.

Is this just a patriarchal argument - "oh other women don't help other women" - presumably this is a red herring and that the system needs to change not individual women?

Hi Tabouleh - I do find it interesting that women in HR who understand that there are massive pay gaps between men and women do not challenge pay reviews with the board - but I have understood this to be that they are, at the end of the day, collecting a pay cheque for their families and so do not challenge the status quo because they are not in a position of power.

Bullying can be just as bad for women or men and either can be a bully.

I think trying to aim for a non-exec position is a interesting, as it will be a growth area - what type of experiences are you trying to clock up?

There are some interesting stats about just how damaging in financial terms it is if women take extended mat leave.

I think quotas may give people the opportunity to say women do not get the position by merit, but I have not seen an example of them in operation.

Sorry - I think quotas are a BAD idea. The job should always go to the best person, regardless of sex.

Personally, I have found women to be MORE defensive and less willing to mentor/promote etc than men are! The reason for this is less clear though...

Re experiences to helo me become a non-exec:

I am a school governor and I am hoping to become vice chair - so experience on a committee, influencing, negotiating.

Some lecturing/teaching work - so gaining more experience in presentations.

Generally reading about the psychology of group behaviour/philosophy/critical thinking etc.

Working on myself to be more assertive without coming across as agressive .

Plus looking to get a breadth of experiences within my profession.

"Sorry - I think quotas are a BAD idea. The job should always go to the best person, regardless of sex."

Unfortunately I don't think that this happens at present. When the vast majority of people recruiting for boards are men they will normally recruit other men and will value characteristics/attitudes similar to their own.

Therefore by requiring a certain percentage of a board/senior management to be female you are giving some women the same scenario that the vast majority of men are in - think of it this way rather than a "special advantage".

I think boards balanced by gender will be better for the companies and better for society.

I know it is a controversial standpoint and I have only fairly recently come round to this point of view.

Repeated/adapted from a thread a couple of months ago.

I was talking to my ex-boss (male) about Feminism and quotas (which he was against surprise surprise).

They he went on to say something very illuminating and TBH if I didn't still socialise with my ex-boss/get on with his so well this wouldn't have come to light so it's pretty interesting.

He said - well when we recruited you - you were the best person for the job by miles - BUT - he said others in the company said - " oh are you sure you want a women/ very male dominated industry/might upset the balance of your team"!

OMG - I said well - thanks X - you have just proved the point to me as to why there should be quotas! Because not only did I have to be the best for the job but I had to be the best by miles and then people questioned his decision because I am female!

This is a real life insight into the minds of male management.

I guess I wouldn't want to be the woman taken on because it HAD to be a woman

I would feel patronised by that. I would never be sure in my own mind...IFYSWIM.

tabouleh, I see your point, but what if the woman WASN'T the "best by miles" and they HAD to recruit her due to a quota. If it didn't work, then it would be because she was a woman, rather than the fact she wasn't the best person for the job.....

rather, that would be the perception.....

Lenin, IF everything else was equal, then fair enough - there should be a balance.

I look at the area I work in, and there are far more people capable of doing a really good job then there are jobs available. You could randomly throw half the CVs in the bin and still get a person who would be perfect for the job.

So I don't see a problem with quotas. In my field there would be no need for this to apply to women, as women do have equality in terms of representation at all levels, but it could certainly apply to minority ethnic groups, who are under-represented at all levels.

I think the idea that there is some kind of shortage of people who could do a really good job, and we must select this exceptional individual is usually untrue in many professions. It is the kind of thinking that gets bankers these huge bonuses. It is the kind of thinking that allows Andy Hornby to bring down a bank with the ludicrous ethos that selling mortgages is no different from selling tins of beans, and then still gets a job running Boots, where he is presumably telling people that selling medicine is no different from selling tins of beans.

But why aren't more women MPs? It is NOT a family friendly job admittedly.

I could see myself as an MP! But I would not do that with a small child. You would never see them. Ok for some, but NOT ok for me.

To me, this is the big thing! I have worked ft since dd was 5 months old. I have no issue with women working and achieving great things. But, to get to board level you have to give it your all, no matter what sex you are.

To me personally, I prefer to have a good work/life balance rather than slave at the office. I have been at the point where we could choose as a family who did the hours/travel. I chose to take a backstep, because i WANT to collect dd from school etc

DH could equally do it, and would, but this is OUR choice - maybe it's that mummy thing....I am sure though that I can't be the only one.

Well it can't just be children, can it? Say I have started out as a low level in a political career at the same time as Tony Blair. Then I have children and decide to give up my career for 20 years to look after my kids. Tony Blair becomes PM at 43. I go back in to politics and am 20 years behind him in my political career. If society was not sexist at all, this should be no problem and I could, if I am as competent (in whatever sense politicians can be said to be competent) and lucky as Tony Blair, become PM at 63.

What would be the problem with that? I would still be younger than James Callaghan was when he became PM. Nobody said to him that he couldn't do it because he should have risen to the top faster.

So it is the fact that we treat mothers, even when they no longer have caring responsibilities, as being not really committed to work that causes the problems, not the caring responsibilities themselves.

Some of the second wave feminists were housewives for many years before they became successful published writers. Just because someone has raised children it does not mean they shouldn't be able to embark on a career, but in reality some people will look at a 40 year old woman as being less suitable for promotion that a 30 year old man at the same level, even if she is doing a better job.

MillyR - thanks for the clarity your post above has given me on the MP issue.

I can go back to my Dad with this now. He was saying "there will never be 50% female MPs".

I kept saying "bloody hell - how hard can it be to find what 300 women to be MPs".

In Politics you probably could do this though. People become MPS at all ages. In Industry it is harder I think.

You have to be up to date/have current skills. If you have taken a big career break of course that makes it harder.

We need a sea change that is not just restricted to women though to change stuff. At the end of the day, employers want people to turn up and do the jobs they are contracted to do. End of.

IMHO we need not so much quotas but more flexibiliy so that both parents can deal with the inevitable sickness/school stuff. Maybe a bit less Mothers and a bit more Fathers.....

I should have added to my explanation that in an ideal world, being a woman with caring responsibilities would be considered to be important experience for a great many jobs, and not just some pointless gap.

Look at all the stuff people put on their CVs about their hobby of climbing or whatever, and how teenagers are told to put down a whole host of extra curricular stuff on university and job applications. How can someone playing the violin as a hobby for 3 years be seen as showing greater employability than another teenager who has raised a child while studying?

Portofino, I agree. I think that people should have more flexibility not just for caring responsibilities, but also so they can be less pressured at work and be happier.

I also think that we have to get away from the idea that building a career before kids is the way to go. In terms of not losing skills it does not make sense to become a SAHM in your thirties, it makes sense to do it when you are near the start of your career. Iceland has around 80% of men and women in employment, and the average age for women to have a first baby is 24. I know that is not possible for all women, and we need to address many of the issues that make it difficult for women to return to decent jobs after having a career break in their thirties. But the idea that the ideal time to have a baby is once you have established your career does not easily work in all professions, particularly those that require constant updating of skills and knowledge. It may work well for people who return immediately, but not for people who are going to take 5 years out.

Hmm at the end of the day, women have had babies forever! It is hard to see how that can be a positive cv point.