Gender in the Boardroom: An Opinion Against Quotas

Women currently make up 19% of the membership of UK boardrooms, up from 12.5% in 2010. This is compared to 26% in Sweden and 35% in Norway. Currently both Sweden and the UK maintain a target based system with the UK having a target of 25% by 2015. This is while Norway currently has a legally enshrined quota of 40%.

A Backwards Step: Positive Discrimination is Still Discrimination

         I am personally against the implementation of quotas regarding women on boardrooms and there are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, in my mind, positive discrimination is still discrimination and for me, simply having "positive" in front of it doesn't make it any less wrong. To turn it on its head, positive discrimination in favour of women is simply another name for negative discrimination against men. In a world where we continue to condemn discrimination against women as we should, why do we think it's ok to discriminate against men? Even if it's with the best intentions, for me morally, it still doesn't feel right.

          That's the principle out of the way, practically if a quota based system was enshrined in law, would it actually do women and business any favours? In my opinion, having a quota based system in place undermines women in boardrooms. This is because it starts making people question whether or not they are there because they truly deserve to be or simply because the rules says they have to be. As such over the longer term, this continuing doubt will harm women's positions in the boardroom.

          Another reason for me being against quotas is because, in order for them to be implemented, one of two things has to happen. The first option is for company board to become unnaturally large to include more women and to meet the quota. This in my opinion will harm the leadership and effective running of these companies and harm business as a result. Or the second option would be to demote or make redundant a male board member and replace him with a woman simply because he’s man. For me, this second option is morally wrong and is discrimination at its purest. For me, the far more sensible and mature approach would be to allow time for male board members to leave the board naturally, either of their own accord or for various other reasons. Then, when seeking their replacement, the gender make-up of the board should be a consideration. However, it is my belief that such appointments should be based purely on that person’s ability and the contribution they will make to the company as a whole. This should be regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation or any other form of possible discrimination.

          It is because of this I am in favour of a target based system. In the longer term, I believe this system will better help women in the board as more of them will be there because they have earned it, not because the rules say they have to be. This will mean these women are less doubted and more respected among both their peers and their subordinates. Furthermore, by encouraging rather than forcing companies to have women on their boards, we may see companies being more open minded about appointing female directors. This is because, in line with human behaviour, if people feel that they forced into doing something, regardless of what it is or its intention, it will naturally be met with hostility. Thus, having a target based system will better allow them to see the benefits of having a mixed and diverse workforce and in particular, a diverse boardroom.

Conclusion

          Simply, although quotas may increase the number of female directors in the short term, it could undermine their position in the longer term. This is compared to targets which may see progress take a little longer, but that progress will lead to more fundamental and long term change. This will be due to their positions being earned rather than given, this will mean the women who are appointed to boardrooms are better respected and thought off among both their peers and subordinates. Essentially, we need a change in culture, not a change in the rules.

          On a side note, even though I am against quotas, I am in favour of legislation regarding equal opportunities. This is because this legislation does not favour any one group over another, but requires neutrality in regards to gender, race, religion and sexual orientation etc. This neutrality and focus on purely the person’s ability to fulfil the role is why I am in favour of this particular legislation, but not quotas.

Click here to see my paper on the gender balance at the aerospace and defence company BAE Systems.