How can we get more female directors into the boardroom?
A new piece of research by Cranfield University has revealed how the number of female directors at FTSE 100 firms has stalled in the past year.
The chart here shows how many female directors have been sitting on the boards of FTSE 100 companies this year compared with a decade ago.
Whilst improvements have been made a ratio of just 12.2% is a poor showing.
What can be done to improve the number of female directors present on the board of large companies?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=63a39433-e3be-4191-850b-0ec9975944d6)
Facebook
LinkedIn
Twitter
YouTube
51,377 people viewed the community in October
I don't know why you would want to get more female directors into the boardroom. I really don't "get" this "women in business" stuff or any other "positive discrimination" nonsense.
You should hire the best person for the job regardless of whether they're male or female, black or white, or anything else. I'd want to know whether they can do the job or not. Simple as that.
I would hate to get a job or be appointed to a position as the token female. I'd only want to be there if I knew I'd got there on my own merits and could do the job as an equal team member.
Men in board room 66%. Women 33%.
...and this is because women are usually less qualified for the job is it?
Why else would they be appointed Barbara?
Women often take career breaks for having children and therefore frequently can't climb the career ladder as easily as men. Sure, men can do child rearing too but it's still relatively rare.
I don't think that women should be discriminated against. I just think that there shouldn't be "positive" discrimination either. Don't discriminate one way or t'other. Just hire the best person for the job.
Most of the recent research into gender and organisations points to the fact that organisations believe they are gender neutral and they have equal opportunity pollicies that prove it. In a very very brief summary there are two issues. Firstly, that organisations are not gender neutral they are normalised on the heterosexual male culture of work versus family and women have to fit inwith this - i.e. working for 8 hours (or more) outside of the home, lack of job share, at senior levels, the 24/7 culture, that you are committed to the organisation or you're not. Secondly, that gender is practised by individuals. Due to decades of legislation primary order discrimination is unacceptable in our culture but secondary order non-conscious discrimation is practised by individuals, e.g. the flow of talk in meetings, men speaking over women, women's ideas not being heard and men repackaging them as their own etc etc. Evidence from Europe suggests that to get more women in senior management positions requires both social pessure and legislation to be effective. The UK has a way to go here.
Come again? Goodness, talk about a generalisation. That's like me saying that ladies use their feminine charms to progress in the workplace. I'm certain it happens but is it right or proper to tar all women with the same brush? No, yet women so often feel the need to bash men left right and centre whenever these sort of debates crop up.
I believe I'm right in saying that women earn more than men do up until the point that they leave work to have children. So that's their choice to do so. If they then choose to start a family with a man that isn't willing to share the workload, that again is their choice.
Frankly I couldn't care less when people work, so long as it gets done professionally, but women really need to stop playing the victim in all of this. The women I know are smart enough and savvy enough to survive and thrive. They don't need positive discrimination to get ahead.
I can't comment on the earnings issue you raise although I do know that women in graduate jobs are paid less than men . I was trying to take the debate forward by quoting (albeit summarising rather baldly) extensive academic research carried out on this issue. Of course some women in some organisations reach the very top but the statistics speak for themselves. 45% of the working population is made up of women but women hold only 11% of directorships in FTSE 100 companies, only 19% of MPs are women, in local authorities only 19.5% of women are CEOs etc etc. And if you also add in other factors such as race then the stastisitcs become even more disconcerting.
Have a look here
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=14203
One group of workers receives, on average, only 90% of the mean hourly wage of the other. For men the gap is 12%. For women 20%. For part time workers (comparing part time to part time) the gap widens to 25%. Beleaguered male part time workers suffer a 39% gap.
It's also worth noting that all of those receiving the higher pay also have earlier retirement ages, higher pensions and greater job security.
The two groups? Public vs Private sector workers (with public getting better pay).
Now when we look at this apparent discrimination people will state a number of reasons, for instance public sector workers are more highly skilled, or more productive, or take fewer career breaks, or simply have stronger unions.
Surely if we're willing to accept such arguments to explain a public/private pay gap, then the same arguments should be entertained in gender pay also?
Back to the point however I'd be very interested if you could provide a breakdown of average male/female pay by age, and the correlation of that with the average age women take breaks to have children.
Most of the gender pay stories I read are very generic and very sensationalised, neither of which is very helpful in taking a sensible approach to tackling this.
Its really difficult to discuss pay gaps in general as they differ between FT vs PT, when you take race, disability into account, occupational segregagtion, women with or without degrees, motherhood etc. Taking only one section - graduates - the EHRC recently showed that women graduates earn 15% less than men by the age of 24 even with the same degree subject and class. It also found that the pay gap gets wider among older graduates.
Another of their reports also analyses 'explained' reasons (ie PT, education etc) and 'unexplained' reasons for continued gender pay gaps and concludes that although the FT gender pay gap has decreased due to greater educaitonal levels and work experience (ie the explained reasons) the unexplained reason for a pay gap has actually increased for some women.
The motherhood/pay issue is interesting as those in FT employment with only 1 child do not have a pay penalty compared with childless women but those with 2 or more children do. The maternity legislation that pays for women to be off work for a (relatively) long time with some degree of protected income compared with paternity leave still ensures that women continue to pay the price in terms of pay and career opportunities for choosing to have children. It also of course ensures that fathers cannot take over the majority of caring responsibilities at this time and I'm sure a lot of fathers would welcome this opportunity.
Interesting Michelle. Regarding the graduate pay issue, do the EHRC say why this is or whether it occurs in particular industries? It would seem helpful to almost name and shame some of the industries that do this to truely get to the bottom of pay inequalities.
Not industries as such but women graduates seem to find jobs in the public sector, smaller companies and are appointed onto more fixed term contracts which all account for lower wages. I think the new equality bill will require all organisations to report on pay? Naming and shaming - what an excellent idea!
I think this is a very interesting topic and one that could be argued till everyone is blue in the face. It can be analysed, argued, counter argued and so on..
On a practical level - have I ever witnessed female discrimination at work?
No....never.......I have worked for and have employed woman & men and always on merit.
My working & business world is a small window to the whole picture but it still surprises me how much this issue is the headliner that it is.
I apologise in advance if this offends anyone but I'm talking from personal experience not a set of data records.
Data aside - in your experience have you ever witnessed this discrimination?
Wesley
I actually think that fewer women apply for top jobs as I said in my recent blog post for reasons of lack of confidence in the main. I'd be interested to see stats of female applicants versus male - my hunch is that there are fewer women applying & therefore fewer women getting these jobs. I don't agree with positive discrimination, I think its insulting - give the job to the best person (man/woman/pink/white/black/brown...).
I do however believe that we need to build up the confidence levels among women and grow their self-belief. Check out my post at:
http://www.managers.org.uk/practical-support/management-community/blogs/...
Piya,
That’s a very interesting link above - suggest everyone interested has a read.
I think the point I would like to raise is that so much of what you written here is subject to your own experience and interpretations as it is would be for all of us. I would certainly concur with some of your points.
There is a difference however between your conclusions that woman are generally less driven to succeed and male dominance as an issue, and ultimately discrimation.
The question has to be asked - have you in any work environment witnessed discrimation against woman?
I have not. I have asked friends of both sexes (that do not work for me) and they have all said the same - the replies I have received all indicate that in their experience they were less interested in careers than their male counterparts. That’s not to say that’s all of them. Some of them are successful business people - through their own drive and determination who not only have not witnessed discrimation themselves but have proven to be very successful in what they do - the issue was not recognised.
Wesley
Hm, this is an interesting discussion and one I think is of particular importance. Many very successful women come to mind when I consider this "issue". Golda Meir, Thatcher to Dame Kelly Holmes, Leona Lewis, Mary Nightingale (news) etc. Is the measure the correct measure?. More importantly if there is a "drive" to place more women in FTSE 100 companies won't this devalue achievements somehow of successful women who have achieved all through their own motivation such as our very own Ruth Spellman OBE, Karen Brady, Dame Anita Roddick Kate Derham and many others. On a simple level I'm sure more women would be on the main boards of the top 100 FTSE companies if they wanted to be there. I think the question from the Top 100 FTSE companies ought to be why do many successful women stear clear of the FTSE 100 companies.
I also got to say that Michelle I think you raise some very valid points, is legislation the right aproach though?
Mike
Interesting discussion here about women in the tech sector, with some good debate in the comments section.
http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/28/women-in-tech-stop-blaming-me/
I don't think that women don't want to succeed or are less driven, because if that were true they would not be so upset about not actually making it to the highest levels. The fact that there is so much frustration indicates a high level of desire to me but that is counter-balanced by low self-belief and a suspicion that there may be factors against them.This therefore results in a tendency to not pursue the big opportunities because they don't think they will get them or they think they are not good enough. I personally believe if a person is visibly the best for the job, they will generally get it - I have not experienced any discrimination because of my gender or colour. I also believe that unless you yourself believe you are suited/good for a role, you don't have much of a hope of convincing the hiring manager that you are.
Piya
Hi again,
Just to run in another dimension to this subject. I suggest you have as look at this article in the MT. Any comments welcome.
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/bulletin/mtenterpriseweekly/article/1025520/women-trusted-bosses/
Wesley
Well this has certainly pressed a few buttons hasn't it? For my part, I have certainly witnessed lots of anti-female discrimination over the last 30 years - but usually in subtle and indirect ways (Lt Uhuru - finally, a black female officer - hooray! except she's basically the switchboad operator...). I work in a sector which has championed diversity for decades (Higher Education) and a large organisation where women outnumber men at every level of management.... until you reach the Executive Team (the main board) - lo and behold, 5 middle-aged white males. I tend to agree with Mike McIntyre's and Piya Khanna's comments that a lot of women appear to be 'voting with their feet' when it comes to jobs at the very top of the ladder. Culture may have a lot to do with it - I've asked several female management associates whether they want to make that last step - with very consistent responses - they don't want to join what they perceive to be a 'male dominated' and macho board culture, they are concerned about tokenism and (as Piya suggests) are not confident that they can change it. There's a whole 'is positive discrimination OK?' debate lurking here (I think it is, but that's another tale). The trouble is, if women take the role of the LibDem party of management - leading successfully at local levels but not getting the primary leader role - it becomes harder and harder for them to be 'electable'... maybe we need a gender coalition?!
I guess it depends very much on the sector you work in.
I work for an NDPB (Non Departmental Public Body (trendy term for QUANGO). We have a female CEO, and of the six directors, the gender balance is evenly split with three of each. The largest directorate (accounting for c half the total work force) has a female director. I have been here over 7 years, and 3 of my 4 managers during that period have been women.
Wrt positive discrimination, my view is that it's the wrong way to go about things. Witness the comments of Diane Abbot that black females should be protected when the axe falls on public sector jobs... how unfair would that be?
Interesting research here into the 'Glass Cliff' phenomenom, which if you're not familiar with it is where women reach the top positions in companies that are about to hit turbulent times.
From Wikipedia:
A glass cliff is a term coined by Prof Michelle Ryan and Prof Alex Haslam of Exeter University, United Kingdom, in 2004.
Their research demonstrates that once women break through the glass ceiling and take on positions of leadership they often have experiences that are different from their male counterparts. More specifically, women are more likely to occupy positions that can be described as precarious and thus have a higher risk of failure - either because they are in organizational units that are in crisis or because they are not given the resources and support needed for success. Extending the metaphor of the glass ceiling, they evoke the metaphor of the ‘glass cliff’ to capture the subtlety to the phenomenon and feeling of teetering on the edge.
Anyway, this new research suggests that in times of crisis a shift occurs in perception of what makes a good leader, and it so happens that men don't fit that stereotype.
http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2010/09/why-are-women-chosen-to-lead.html
Nigel, I'm not sure I completely agree with you about HE working in the sector myself. There has been extensive research undertaken on women academics and their attainment to top positions and the results do not make good reading. Women Professors are still paid significantly less than their male counterparts as well. I've just undertaken some research on professional managers in HE and the same pattern holds as for their academic colleagues. Basically that up to a certain point on the pay scale (equivalent ot Head of Unit)women non-academic managers outnumber men 2:1 but once past a certain point there is an exact switch so that men outnumber women 2:1.
Interesting article here saying that women managers have grown by just 1% in the last decade.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/28/news/economy/GAO_women_workforce_report/
Article here in the Beeb from Trevor Phillips saying the gender pay gap is 'grinding to a halt'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11511714
When it came to pay, the report said that the gender pay gap was lowest for the under 30s, rising more than five-fold by the time workers reached 40, with a "pernicious earnings penalty" affecting some ethnic minority and disabled people.
Which seems to me to say something like "before women leave the workforce to have children their income is comparable to men, and after their absence to have/raise child, their pay lags behind..."
I don't want to contribute any actual research or quote any statistics as I do think everyone makes valid points already. But looking at it from my own perspective....
As a woman who started from exceptionally harsh humble beginnings I have not done too badly from where I started as a telephone operator, typist, secretary, executive assistant to a now Senior Manager (picking up on Michael McIntyre’s point about achieving through own motivation).
· Has my journey been an easy one? No - and in particular in the financial services industry it is exceptionally tough as a woman.
· Have I wanted to shake the living daylights out of some of my male counterparts because of the obvious yet subtle macho discrimination because of the very points Michelle Gander mentions in her comments on 17/08? - Absolutely!
· Has it stopped me from striving to achieve my career objectives? – No.
· Has it caused me to reflect on my own behaviour and attitude (getting rid of the victim mentality Mike Davies refers to) and what I need to change to succeed? – Definitely!
· Am I where I want to be with my career? - No not yet.
· Are there times when I want to give up and be at home? – Oh yes but I don’t have that fortunate choice!
· Am I paid the same as my male peers with less experience? – No, less (and not because I left to have maternity breaks either as I don't have children).
I guess my point is discrimination against gender and experience is a real issue and only because I have experienced it first hand and witnessed it happening to other female colleagues. I do believe though that it is business specific as there are a huge amount of incredibly successful women out there who I look to as role models. It has been my experiences in the industry I work in certainly that women generally have to work harder, to achieve the same level of success that seems to gravitate naturally towards our male counterparts.
I have not allowed perceived discriminatory behaviour to stop me from achieving what I have set out to do - if anything my assertive skills are heightened to a new level so that I, and others alongside or behind me, am not at the receiving end of that kind of behaviour. I also recognise though that maybe I have to change some things in my life (like investing in certain skills) to climb onto the next ‘deep’ step.
The point Piya (and one or two others made) is correct, as women we are the only ones that hold ourselves back from pursuing big opportunities (I know!).
A man will scan the role description and of the ten points listed may only have experience in two but he will parachute in and learn the rest along the way! A woman will look at the same role description and because she can’t do all ten points won’t apply! So Ladies if we want to succeed where men have gone before us then don’t let anyone steal your dream - carry on knocking aside the perceived obstacles.
Apparently Iceland is the best for gender equality, according to a new study.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11517459
Norway and Finland make up the top 3, with the UK down in 15th place. What can we learn from these countries?
Hi Anne,
Your experience sounds very similar to mine actually, I also have no kids but I believe I was paid (at least later in my caree) in line with my male peers or more than them, pretty much because I negotiated it and had to prove I was head and shoulders above them in terms of ability & results!
Interesting link in FT on the weekend, which makes some similar points to those on this forum!
http://womenatthetop.ft.com/articles/women-top/fb4b00fc-d5e1-11df-94dc-0...
ALso this one:
http://blogs.ft.com/women-at-the-top/2010/10/13/quotas-schmotas/
Nice TED talk here from the COO of Facebook on this very issue.
My most recent role where I was close to "Board" activities had two females as Chair (one for group and one for subsidiary) clearly there due to their skills and capability
I don't know why you would want to get more female directors into the boardroom. I really don't "get" this "women in business" stuff or any other "positive discrimination" nonsense.
You should hire the best person for the job regardless of whether they're male or female, black or white, or anything else. I'd want to know whether they can do the job or not. Simple as that.
I would hate to get a job or be appointed to a position as the token female. I'd only want to be there if I knew I'd got there on my own merits and could do the job as an equal team member.
As a result of tradition and culture women’s involvement in decision making and leadership roles has been limited which women need to stand up and prove this wrong, women society should be given considerable in the labour market once they have the merit.
have followed this thread with interest over the past few months and finally feel that I should contribute.
I am a woman working as a leader for a FTSE100 company, I am certainly not a director (yet!!) but who knows what tomorrow will bring.
I have read many valid points, and many different articles through this thread. On a personal level I chose to have my family early in life and now my children are grown up the way is clear so I dont plan on having any career breaks (unless I win the Euro Millions), I have friends who were high flyers and tipped for the top but are now stay at home mums or feel that they now have the best of both worlds and dont want to push through the glass ceiling any more. Equally I know others that are very driven and want to get to the top.
I have never been discriminated against because of my sex, even though I work in a male dominated industry. I sit in male dominated meetings and have had to work to get my views across becuase I am not the loudest, the most out spoken or always have the most to say but I have had the same exeperience when the room is full of women.
For some women it is a lack of confidence, for others they perceive that it means working with a load of macho men when this is not the case, others choose to stop climbing when they are comfortable, for some it will be their personality that gets in the way and for others they are go getters and nothing will stop them....
But we all have the choice of filling out the next application form or attending the next interview. In my opinion which is not based on stats or facts the only thing holding many women back is themselves.
Fascinating chart here on the drop off rate of female executives.
http://blogs.forbes.com/csr/2011/01/28/why-qualified-women-dont-make-it-...
Deutsche Bank CEO Josef Ackermann is drawing flak in Germany after joking that his company's all-male board might one day recruit a female director to make the place "more colorful and prettier, too." The comments came during a heated debate over calls for a mandatory quota for female directors.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870442220457613049167708661...
Not sure quite what to say to that. Staggering stuff.
That's classic. What an oaf!
Seems quite the month for making incredibly stupid remarks. How do these people get to the top of companies? And more importantly how widespread is such chauvanism?
Hmm, an interesting article here. Apparently according to 'official stats' women that work full time have just as much chance of making the boardroom as men.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362810/Glass-ceiling-Women-chan...
At senior management level, women appear to have achieved equality. According to workforce statistics, women make up 35.8 per cent of all full-time workers, while among managers and senior officials the proportion is 35.5 per cent – up from 30.7 per cent in 2001.
There's also a nice piece in Forbes here with some tips on how to get more diversity in the boardroom.
http://blogs.forbes.com/moiraforbes/2011/03/07/how-to-add-more-women-to-...
Board of Directors:
Ellig stresses that CEOs and boards need more than just tone at the top. Accelerating change requires a TEAM approach–Tone, Education, Action, Metrics–that is embraced and integrated throughout the entire organization.
Search Firms:
The Investment Community:
Women Leaders:
Nice Forbes piece Wayne, surprised no one commented on the Daily Mail stats though. I mean 35% is hardly equal is it?
Women have the same chance as a man in getting a job. But it depends on the interviewer (Which it shouldn't). However i think that men for some reason are afraid of women in high positions. Some women have a point to prove (Crusade) and some women are just professionals. Which are you?
The Chief Executive for the CMI is a woman and she has obviously worked at a career to get to the top of her profession. But some reasearch has suggested that work–family conflict still prevents many female managers from progressing to senior management.
Glencore CEO Simon Murray got into hot water over the weekend over comments he made in the Sunday Telegraph. Here's what he said:
“Women in the boardroom? Terrific,” he says. “Why not? Always welcome. But why make a special case out of it? Why tell everybody you’ve got to have X number of women in the boardroom? Women are quite as intelligent as men. They have a tendency not to be so involved quite often and they’re not so ambitious in business as men because they’ve better things to do. Quite often they like bringing up their children and all sorts of other things.
“All these things have unintended consequences. Pregnant ladies have nine months off. Do you think that means that when I rush out, what I’m absolutely desperate to have is young women who are about to get married in my company, and that I really need them on board because I know they’re going to get pregnant and they’re going to go off for nine months?”
The Guardian want him sacked before he's even chaired his first board meeting! Vince Cable condemned Murray’s “extremely primitive attitude” and said Murray’s views are “completely unacceptable for the chairman of what will be one of the U.K.’s biggest PLCs.
Personally I think this is a massive over-reaction and seems designed as much to gain column inches on a populist issue as to further the cause of women.
Well, if Vince Cable is condemning him, he can't be ALL bad... and a totally predictable response from the Guardian.
I agree with Mike - a wonderful excuse to get some publicity.
He was doing fine up until the end when it all went a bit wrong.
"Women are quite as intelligent as men.”
He must have expected some stick for that kind of statement.
I saw this in the news today, and don't think it helps womens demands for equality. Apparently lots of ladies are marching on Westminster protesting against plans to ensure their retirement age is the same as men.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23951008-women-to-walk-on-parliament-to-protest-pension-age-increase.do
Interesting piece here on the proposed rules to force boards to contain 40% of women.
http://www.economist.com/node/18988506?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/ar/thewrongwaytopr...