Help me explain why having women in senior roles matters

[badbadhusky]

I have a new boss. He's reshuffled his senior team and there are now fewer women in key roles and decision-making groups. It's a source of long-stanging ill feeling with many of my female colleagues. We discussed it and he says it doesn't matter as much as I think it does, that he's a really fair person. I managed to land a couple of points about the importance of role models - younger women being able to see "people like me" in senior roles - and how its not good enough to do the right thing, you have to be seen to do the right thing & balanced committes etc show that. He's the kind of person who responds really well to evidence. Can anyone point to resources and research evidence which demonstrste the importance of this?

Yes, men can have parental leave but in my honest opinion children need their mums! - so you wouldn't hire a woman because you would not approve if her husband shared the parental leave and she came back to work?

I just don't believe you, to be honest. I think you're a fantasist. You come across as very unintelligent, don't write well, you're writing rambling paragraphs on mumsnet at 11 on a Wednesday morning, and you're being really explicit and simplistic about views that most people who genuinely hold them would communicate totally differently. I find it really difficult to believe you're doing the hiring and firing of senior management teams.

there are simple on-line course about unconscious bias, could he do one of those? Then he would see that he is making decisions at all levels reflectign his own bias, and so havign a mixed team leads to better decision making.

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!

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

Yes you did!

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.

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!

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

"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!

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

Some good articles / data source here:

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

Thanks all for your comments (except for the obvious goady fucker). BossyBitch - your post was especially helpful, particularly this bit:

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.

The recruitment environment in our bit of the sector is particularly competitive, so it's important that we have a representative profile and look the kind of environment where people can "get on." That's where I see the value in having visible role models. The women are promoted at broadly the same rates as men, so it's not a dinosaur's graveyard, but its taking time to shift the profile of our specialism at the senior level.

I should say that no-one has lost their job. Everyone has kept their substantial post. It's more that people have additional themes or responsibiities where they are keeping a watching brief, bring forward ideas for service enhancements, opportunities to generate more income etc. Those are the roles that have shaken down differently. They don't attract extra salary, but instead they can help people broaden their understanding of the organisation, demonstrate leadership, allow them to dip their toe in more demanding areas and so on - good for building a CV and yiur profile. I feel a bit bummed out by it all if I am honest. My old boss was very progressive and really 'got' the issues.

I will follow the links and chew over your posts - even the 'tough love' ones have been helpful.

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

Why precisely?

Great post, BB

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.