40% of board member posts should be reserved for women
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20039540
Just listening to the Radio 2 debate on this, currently 16% of board members in the UK are women and the EU want this to be 40% by law. The UK government wants 15% of directors to be women by 2015.
I would have expected that being a free market meritocracy, the boards of top UK businesses are represented by people who have fought to the top, which perhaps by natural competitive edge, happens to be a male majority.
Likewise, the distinctly male 'ego driven competition for competition sake' must have a role to play in this getting to the top thing.
As an example, Dragons Den Hilary Devey has said before that the glass ceiling concept is rubbish.
I think this whole issue makes for an interesting debate... What does PH make of it?
Just listening to the Radio 2 debate on this, currently 16% of board members in the UK are women and the EU want this to be 40% by law. The UK government wants 15% of directors to be women by 2015.
I would have expected that being a free market meritocracy, the boards of top UK businesses are represented by people who have fought to the top, which perhaps by natural competitive edge, happens to be a male majority.
Likewise, the distinctly male 'ego driven competition for competition sake' must have a role to play in this getting to the top thing.
As an example, Dragons Den Hilary Devey has said before that the glass ceiling concept is rubbish.
I think this whole issue makes for an interesting debate... What does PH make of it?
Edited by Wattsie on Tuesday 23 October 12:29
I don't think it's that interesting a debate. Board members (like candidates for any other job) should be selected on ability and suitability, and gender shouldn't come into it one way or the other. By definition sensible people agree on this.
A more interesting debate is how much longer "the government" will carry on being a mouthpiece for the European Commission, who came up with this great idea.
A more interesting debate is how much longer "the government" will carry on being a mouthpiece for the European Commission, who came up with this great idea.
Edited by AJS- on Tuesday 23 October 12:39
I think it's difficult to put a quota on something like this without understanding the underlying statistics. Where did the 40% come from?
How many women in FT employment vs men?
How many women want to have a career path that takes them to Board level vs men?
I've always believed that it should be for companies to determine the best candidate for the job.
How many women in FT employment vs men?
How many women want to have a career path that takes them to Board level vs men?
I've always believed that it should be for companies to determine the best candidate for the job.
AJS- said:
Board members (like candidates for any other job) should be selected on ability and suitability, and gender shouldn't come into it one way or the other.
London424 said:
How many women want to have a career path that takes them to Board level vs men?
turbobloke said:
Open competition is best.
These more or less sum up my opinion on the subject - getting to the top of the organisation is a merit thing.Fiddling with the free-market just gives rise to problems.
On the other hand, aren't many of these jobs a product of effective networking, in which case I'm sure it would be quite difficult to join/network with other top people in, say, golfing out of the office, as a woman.
mattnunn said:
Poor example.
Fair point - so do you think there is a 'glass ceiling' ?Edited by Wattsie on Tuesday 23 October 12:42
Good.
Women have structural and socially embedded impediments to getting onto company boards. Once there they tend to add more value than males. Every company should have a female perspective at board level, otherwise they ignore half the population.
In countries that have instituted quotas it has been a great success.
Women have structural and socially embedded impediments to getting onto company boards. Once there they tend to add more value than males. Every company should have a female perspective at board level, otherwise they ignore half the population.
In countries that have instituted quotas it has been a great success.
Serendipity72 said:
Good.
Women have structural and socially embedded impediments to getting onto company boards. Once there they tend to add more value than males. Every company should have a female perspective at board level, otherwise they ignore half the population.
In countries that have instituted quotas it has been a great success.
Perhaps it's not as cut and dried as you suggest.Women have structural and socially embedded impediments to getting onto company boards. Once there they tend to add more value than males. Every company should have a female perspective at board level, otherwise they ignore half the population.
In countries that have instituted quotas it has been a great success.
"Jo Swinson, a new employment minister, said bringing in quotas forcing companies to reserve a certain number of board seats for women could lead firms to recruit poor quality female candidates. Her comments come as Britain fights a draft proposal from Brussels to impose a 40 per cent female quota on boards of listed companies across the European Union. Asked how quotas would affect the economy, Ms Swinson referred to a study indicating that 'mandatory quotas to increase the number of women on corporate boards has negatively affected business performance'"
"Helen Grant, a new equalities minister, has also criticised the EU's moves to impose quotas. 'Enforced quotas hang over us and business like the Sword of Damocles and that worries me,” she said during the Conservative Party conference. That kind of positive discrimination can demean a woman’s real value and alienate men.'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9615292/F...
An obvious and better alternative to allow merit to find its own level:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-business/9...
Finally, after we've bent the corporate knee to one paid-up member of the victim industry, what next - presumably a quota for every other subgroup that social meddlers can think of.
Isn't it a genetic fact though... that woman and men's brains differ in their priorities/strength's and thus it might be a perfectly natural thing that less woman are in the board room.
In my experiences woman and men's complement each other in the sense "men see the forest, women see the tree's"
You can't force a square peg into a round hole... so to speak.
How many female's work as mechanics?
In my experiences woman and men's complement each other in the sense "men see the forest, women see the tree's"
You can't force a square peg into a round hole... so to speak.
How many female's work as mechanics?
AJS- said:
I don't think it's that interesting a debate. Board members (like candidates for any other job) should be selected on ability and suitability, and gender shouldn't come into it one way or the other. By definition sensible people agree on this.
^^^ YupAJS- said:
A more interesting debate is how much longer "the government" will carry on being a mouthpiece for the European Commission, who came up with this great idea.
Until UKIP get elected, which'll be never. Neither colour of tie wants us to leave the EU politically.Surely the most likely outcome of this kind of quota would be that a new breed of company board members would evolve... able to sit and register as board members whilst spending 95% of their day shopping for shoes, handbags and 'lunching' with similarly styled board members from other companies?
jbi said:
Isn't it a genetic fact though... that woman and men's brains differ in their priorities/strength's
As a crude generalisation perhaps, but you'll be easilly accused of mysoginy.jbi said:
and thus it might be a perfectly natural thing that less woman are in the board room.
Well yes, if men (for the sake of argument) have a greater prediliction to bullying and pushing their way to the top regardless of whether they merit it based on the ability and skill set to actually do the job, then they will be over represented in the board room - is this usefull or correct?Would a football team be best represented by 11 John Terry's or does it take all sorts of varying skllls and attributes to build a good team?
Marf said:
AJS- said:
A more interesting debate is how much longer "the government" will carry on being a mouthpiece for the European Commission, who came up with this great idea.
Until UKIP get elected, which'll be never. Neither colour of tie wants us to leave the EU politically.I agree to a point, but I could see a referendum in the next parliament forcing their hand somewhat. They'll undoubtedly throw endless public money at getting the "right" answer, and will try to fudge it when they get told where to stick it, but I wouldn't rule out major changes. Maybe I'm just a hopeless optimist.
doogz said:
mattnunn said:
Well yes, if men (for the sake of argument) have a greater prediliction to bullying and pushing their way to the top regardless of whether they merit it based on the ability and skill set to actually do the job, then they will be over represented in the board room - is this usefull or correct?
Would a football team be best represented by 11 John Terry's or does it take all sorts of varying skllls and attributes to build a good team?
Poor analogy. It takes all sorts. You'll notice though, that they're all men. That's because they are more suited to the 'role' That's not sexist, it's just how it is.Would a football team be best represented by 11 John Terry's or does it take all sorts of varying skllls and attributes to build a good team?
As the poster said above, and we can all agree, women (in general) have a particular intelligence and ability that men (in general) may not have - these skills are left out of the board room in general because they have been ridden rough shot (not a euphamism, dirty) over. This may not be a good thing.
I'm pretty certain that Fred Goodwin was not the best man to be running RBS and that it's not necessarilly true that a women on his board could have controlled him, it may have been a valuable check and balance.
PLCs are not the same a private owned companies and familly firms, they are in public ownership and should reflect good working practise as decided by the democratic concept.
AJS- said:
Marf said:
AJS- said:
A more interesting debate is how much longer "the government" will carry on being a mouthpiece for the European Commission, who came up with this great idea.
Until UKIP get elected, which'll be never. Neither colour of tie wants us to leave the EU politically.I agree to a point, but I could see a referendum in the next parliament forcing their hand somewhat. They'll undoubtedly throw endless public money at getting the "right" answer, and will try to fudge it when they get told where to stick it, but I wouldn't rule out major changes. Maybe I'm just a hopeless optimist.
jbi said:
Isn't it a genetic fact though... that woman and men's brains differ in their priorities/strength's and thus it might be a perfectly natural thing that less woman are in the board room.
In my experiences woman and men's complement each other in the sense "men see the forest, women see the tree's"
You can't force a square peg into a round hole... so to speak.
How many female's work as mechanics?
However many there are they will be fIn my experiences woman and men's complement each other in the sense "men see the forest, women see the tree's"
You can't force a square peg into a round hole... so to speak.
How many female's work as mechanics?
king useless and be costing the company money by being carried by their male counterparts. Women in the motor trade are a liability, for the same reasons most of us blokes on here would be useless at child care or nursing not by accident or quota but by well... Natural selection maybe?. Genetic predisposition shapes us, society contains us. I used to work at Rolls Royce and the female shop floor staff were a nightmare, at least the more feminine ones were. They couldn't take criticism and couldn''t make decisions and that was even allowing for a certain hands off approach because tears could happen sometimes. Men and women are obviously different, look how many patents have been registered by gender, hardly any by women, not because they aren't intelligent, but because priorities are different for them. But they are vastly better at a lot of things than men. It's obvious why baroness Ashton, harperson etc hate men, its because they have no feminine qualities to attract them, even there marriages were due to socialist networking, this anger thing constantly surfaces itself with socialists, an imagined slight that society holds against them is used to interfere in the lives of people who they secretly despise.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff