Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 56

Thread: Female Quotas in Corporate Boardrooms

  1. #1

    Default Female Quotas in Corporate Boardrooms

    European Union debate due on women board quotas

    EU commissioners are due to debate proposals that would force quotas for women on corporate boards.

    EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding is in favour of the proposals to make it mandatory for companies to reserve 40% of seats for women.

    But several countries, including the UK, are opposed to it.

    The debate comes after the European Parliament criticised the lack of female candidates for the European Central Bank (ECB).

    A parliamentary committee - in a resolution passed by 21 votes to 12, with 13 absentions - called on the European Council to withdraw the candidacy of Luxembourg's Yves Mersch for the ECB executive board, saying his appointment would mean that the board would be all male up until 2018.

    The debate on Ms Reding's quotas plan is due in Strasbourg on Tuesday.

    If there is enough agreement, the proposals will be put to the European Parliament, which could vote to make gender quotas mandatory across the 27 countries in the European Union.

    "Of course, there will be some opposition. But Europe has a lot to gain from more diverse corporate boards," Ms Reding said on Twitter.

    "The European Parliament has called for action to get more women into boardrooms. The time to act is now."

    At the moment, less than 15% of board positions in EU member states are currently held by women, according to the Commission.

    Ms Reding's proposals on compulsory numbers of women come after France, Spain, Italy, Iceland and Belgium introduced quota laws. Norway, which is not an EU member, has had a 40% quota since 2003.

    Her opponents argue that voluntary targets and increased efforts to change attitudes would be more effective in the long run.

    UK Business Secretary Vince Cable is leading a campaign against the quota proposals, backed by ministers from eight other countries.

    In the UK, the percentage of women on the boards of FTSE 100 companies has risen over the past year to a record 16%, but the UK government wants the biggest listed companies to have a minimum 25% of female directors by 2015.
    Anyone think this is a good idea?

    I would certainly think that 'voluntary targets and increased efforts to change attitudes would be more effective in the long run' is a much better idea than forced quotas.

  2. #2
    Serves the same general idea as reality TV, let's give more sociopathic women air time?
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Timbuk2 View Post
    Anyone think this is a good idea?
    I think that depends on what your long-term goals are. In the short term there will be problems due in part to the available supply of remotely qualified women being summat different from the supply of qualified men, in part to the constraints imposed by entrenched views and insufficient information. Throughout, some people may have issues with whether or not this sort of thing is just. I think this may be a reasonable long-term investment in the creation of a larger class of women executives and perhaps even a more stable kind of corporate board.

    I would certainly think that 'voluntary targets and increased efforts to change attitudes would be more effective in the long run' is a much better idea than forced quotas.
    You'd think so. In Norway voluntary compliance in the private sector wasn't going very well or looking particularly effective until a conservative self-avowed non-feminist minister of trade decided to rush things along. Norwegian companies seem to have overshot, if anything, over the course of a decade other sectors in Norway have voluntarily instated 40% quotas (to be clear, the law determines the minimum representation of either sex among shareholder representatives and among employee/company representatives, taking into account the size of the board and the makeup of the company).
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  4. #4
    With that said, I think they'll need more time to comply and better guidance in implementing new recruitment policies.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  5. #5
    Best person for the job. Rather than artificial quotas how about looking into WHY the difference happens?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  6. #6
    Less women in the workforce?

    Time taken out for children means career heights are not attained?

  7. #7
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    It's probably this weird idea that "more time spent in the office equals more work done" which pretty much haunts quite a lot of those software projects where this idiotic "crunch time" persists which in reality creates more problems (read: bugs) than it solves.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Best person for the job. Rather than artificial quotas how about looking into WHY the difference happens?
    Last I heard--and I don't have the references handy--one important reason seems to be that a great deal of recruiting at this level and just below relies on private and/or semi-formal networking that favours men, rather than more "professional" networking of the sort that may even the playing field. Women who make it through are more likely to be recruited in a "professional" way than in an informal way (esp. if they're a little mannish I suppose ). Norway had some interesting problems relating to the the lack of information contained by these private networks about qualified women.

    One advantage of enforcing artificial quotas is that it forces companies to start recruiting in other ways, including more professional and merit-oriented ways. A short-term disadvantage may be that pool of women to choose from is, initially, less than ideal (which initially undermines some of the merit-based approach). They are on average younger and less experienced. But, in the long term, you will have given women greater and much-needed access to these networks... and you'll have given the networks greater and much-needed access to (and information about) a largely untapped (shush ) source of future competent executives. Although it may make it harder to find "the best person for the job", it may make it easier to find a better "best person for the job".

    Apart from the above there's some talk about how women make corporate boards better, more professional and more sensible. I don't know if that's true or not. No doubt everyone here has anecdotes to support either position.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  9. #9
    Why stop at women? Why not have quotas for each ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and disability? While we're at it, maybe have a quota for ideology and political party, too.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Why stop at women? Why not have quotas for each ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and disability? While we're at it, maybe have a quota for ideology and political party, too.
    I was only addressing the question of "why start with gender?", you're welcome to address the other questions if you're interested in them. Looking forward to your cost/benefit analysis. The quota was implemented in Norway ostensibly as a measure to increase productivity over the long term, not simply as a measure to increase justice of some form in some way.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  11. #11

  12. #12
    In hopes it will save us from some of the repetitious posturing . . . Prior thread.

    edit:
    :hits Wiggin: Post-stealer!
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  13. #13
    I was curious about your comment about "less talented people". Talent is just one aspect. What about experience? Training? Exposure? It's possible for a talented person to have less experience, training and exposure due to structural and social problems that destroy value.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    I was curious about your comment about "less talented people". Talent is just one aspect. What about experience? Training? Exposure? It's possible for a talented person to have less experience, training and exposure due to structural and social problems that destroy value.
    I was using talent as a catch-all phrase for 'most qualified'. Obviously if you view talent as an innate quality that is refined by experience et al then you wouldn't necessarily want the best talent, but rather the best all-around qualifications for the job.

  15. #15
    I read this a while ago and meant to post it in that other thread. Though it looks like the EU proposal was scratched just a few hours ago.

    Like many quotas, seems to have an unintended consequence-

    Updated September 11, 2012, 8:46 p.m. ET
    'Pink Quotas' Alter Europe's Boards
    Gender Mandates, Expertise in Hot Fields Bring Foreign Directorships to More American Women

    By JOANN S. LUBLIN

    More American female executives are taking seats in Europe's boardrooms, in part because companies there face mandates to add women directors.

    While most European companies are focusing their board recruiting efforts on European women, many of them also are seeking candidates who can help them expand their American contacts and sales.

    Consider Françoise Brougher. The Google Inc. vice president, a French native and a U.S. citizen since 2004, joined the board of Sodexo SA in January. The global food-services and facilities-management company, which is based near Paris, depends on North America for 32% of its revenue.

    Sodexo picked Ms. Brougher partly because she "talks like an American executive" and understands new technology, said Patricia S. Bellinger, head of the company's board-nominating committee and its first female director from the U.S.

    Ms. Brougher declined to comment.

    As European boards look to meet their gender goals, they also hope to check a few more boxes by snagging American women with expertise in hot areas such as digital media, emerging markets and accounting, said Susan Stautberg, co-founder of Women Corporate Directors, a professional group in New York. Those with dual citizenship and European work experience get bonus points, according to Ms. Stautberg.

    European companies "really do want American women,'' said Ms. Bellinger, executive director of executive education for Harvard Business School. Several executive recruiters also describe a recent groundswell in European boards' pursuit of American female business leaders, partly because the U.S. has a larger pool of senior executive women.

    A 2011 French law requires corporate boards to be at least 20% female by January 2014, or directors won't get their fees.

    Women represented 22% of board members at France's biggest public companies in January 2012, nearly twice the about 12% in October 2010, according to a European Commission report. In the U.S., by comparison, women held 16% of the directorships at Fortune 500 companies as of 2011, according to Catalyst, a nonprofit group that researches women's issues.

    Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands, Norway, Iceland and Italy recently enacted similar statutes. The U.K. and Swedish governments have embraced voluntary targets. Britain hopes women will occupy 25% of boardroom positions at the biggest companies by 2015. Sweden is aiming for boards composed equally of men and women.

    Since January, at least six other U.S. women besides Ms. Brougher have landed board seats at big European companies, including Anglo American PLC, Fiat SpA and Nokia Corp. There are 96 American women with a total of 136 corporate directorships in 12 European nations, according to an analysis this month by executive recruiter Spencer Stuart.

    By 2017, the Spencer Stuart figures "will certainly double and may triple," said Ms. Stautberg, whose group has about 1,500 members on 1,800 boards world-wide. She said European businesses frequently fought proposed quota legislation as unnecessary, then began heavily wooing prospective female directors once the laws passed.

    The race for American women has led to some women receiving a number of offers. Among those in demand is U.S.-born Jan Babiak, a veteran Ernst & Young managing partner who became a professional director when she retired from the firm in 2009 at age 51 after two decades in Britain, where she acquired citizenship.

    Ms. Babiak said that not long after joining the board of Logica PLC, a U.K. information-technology-services company, now part of CGI Group Inc., she turned away offers or feelers about serving on the board of 10 other European concerns, typically due to schedule conflicts.

    One of them was Smiths Group PLC, a technology firm eager to increase its U.S. presence. Tanya Fratto, a former chief executive of Diamond Innovations Inc. whom Ms. Babiak recommended to Smiths, was named its first American director on July 1. The Smiths announcement cited Ms. Fratto's U.S. operating experience. "America is our single most important market," a Smiths spokesman said. Ms. Fratto became the second woman on the eight-member board, helping the company hit the U.K.'s voluntary target for female directors.

    "Smiths was first attracted to me because I was an accomplished woman with an electrical-engineering background," Ms. Fratto said. But she believes she ultimately won the board seat "because of my extensive and successful experience in running a number of businesses."

    Other European companies find it harder to attract a U.S. female board member. "The fundamental obstacles are geography and time," said Luke Meynell, who coleads the European board practice for executive recruiter Russell Reynolds Associates Inc.

    European boards convene an average of nine times a year, 50% more than their American counterparts, according to the National Association of Corporate Directors. It says board service and travel consumes an estimated 300 hours a year in Europe, more than a U.S. board's annual average of 227.5 hours.

    Independent European directors tend to be compensated in cash and less than counterparts at U.S.-based businesses, where rewards mainly consist of stock, surveys show.

    Betsy Atkins, a veteran American venture capitalist, has rejected four or five more European directorships since her 2011 election to the board of Schneider Electric SA, an electrical engineering and power-management concern. She doesn't know which attributes attracted those businesses to her, but said she has served on about 25 public-company boards.

    "I have a full plate," said Ms. Atkins, also a director of Polycom Inc. and two other U.S. companies. In April, she used videoconferencing to attend a California board meeting of San Jose-based Polycom after attending a Schneider meeting in Paris.

    Some U.S. women may be put off by the idea they are filling a quota. Will Dawkins, head of Spencer Stuart's U.K. board-services practice, said he can "well imagine that it would be an issue when [women] consider positions on boards in countries that have female quotas, such as Norway, France and Italy."

    While seeking additional directors last year, struggling Finnish cellphone maker Nokia preferred at least one American woman with a finance background and West Coast perspective, said Mr. Dawkins. The hunt, which the search firm handled, "was quite difficult because of the travel" the directorship required, prompting several U.S.-based female candidates to reject the opportunity, he said. Nokia held 19 board meetings in 2011, according to its annual report.

    Nokia wanted at least one director "based and strongly networked in Silicon Valley," said a spokesman, who denied that gender or cultural background influenced the search. (Finland's regulation says both sexes should be represented on boards but doesn't specify any percentages or timetables.)

    Elizabeth Nelson, a former finance chief at Macromedia Inc., a Web-development software concern, was among three newcomers elected to Nokia's board at its May 3 annual meeting.

    Despite Europe's so-called pink quotas, American women living there sometimes spend months pursuing their first European directorship because they must first develop key local connections. Joyce Bigio is typical. The U.S.-born managing partner of International Accounting Solutions in Milan holds Italian citizenship and spent most of her career in Italy.

    Two years ago, Ms. Bigio landed on a list of 150 women in Italy qualified for corporate board service. She said she "started actively campaigning for a board position" the following year, after Italy passed a law requiring that women make up one-third of board members at listed and state-owned enterprises by 2015. Ms. Bigio identified business targets, attended a seminar in Rome for potential female directors and buttonholed recruiters. Through one such recruiter, a group representing Fiat minority investors proposed her for the board of Italy's largest car maker by sales.

    The company, which controls U.S.-based Chrysler, selects directors "irrespective of nationality or sex," a spokesman said. But This spring, Fiat opened its boardroom doors to two women for the first time in the Italian auto maker's 113-year history. One of them was Ms. Bigio.

    Fiat now meets the Italian quota law, which took effect in August.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...530827882.html

  16. #16
    Isn't it interesting that the country not pursuing quotas is the one with the larger pool of experienced senior executive women?

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Isn't it interesting that the country not pursuing quotas is the one with the larger pool of experienced senior executive women
    ... "who are well-known and have desirable networks in Silicon Valley."

    It's not very surprising at all; you guys have like 300 million people, a greater portion of whom are working age and about 50% of whom are women, and have many more businesses in which a large (total number) of women may have gained experience. These European countries are small, old, sexist and not nearly as productive. They'd like to nab male American executives too, if they could.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  18. #18
    The European Union has more people, even if you exclude some of the more recent entrants...Germany, Spain, France, Italy, and Britain alone have more people than the US.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    ... "who are well-known and have desirable networks in Silicon Valley."
    That's a reason to recruit Americans (or, at least, people with business connections in Silicon Valley, which includes plenty of foreigners). That's not a reason to recruit women. All other things being equal, when they're forced to recruit women for their boards, they look around their own countries and realize there are no women who are in senior management positions... so they have to poach from the US.

    It suggests to me that quotas aren't going to advance the cause of women in countries which are simply not producing qualified professionals for whatever reason (and yes, I suspect that many European companies have more entrenched attitudes re: women than American companies, which are hungry for talent regardless of whether it comes attached to a vagina). To get more women controlling companies, you need more women in middle and senior management positions, not an absurdly discriminatory and ineffective mandate.

  20. #20
    And to get more women in POP (positions of power), females need equal access to higher education, the ability to control their reproductive choices, and Family Planning in general. For US women, that includes baby boomers, the 'sandwich generation', X gen and Millennial groups....where women still take up the slack in ways that men don't.

    Boardrooms wouldn't be so male-dominated if the tasks of Family Care were evenly distributed by gender.

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    And to get more women in POP (positions of power), females need equal access to higher education, the ability to control their reproductive choices, and Family Planning in general. For US women, that includes baby boomers, the 'sandwich generation', X gen and Millennial groups....where women still take up the slack in ways that men don't.

    Boardrooms wouldn't be so male-dominated if the tasks of Family Care were evenly distributed by gender.
    Equal access to higher education? Women are the majority of students in higher ed. The ability to control reproductive choices? Contraception is widely and cheaply available, as is abortion.

    As for family care tasks, I don't disagree with you necessarily (though I think there's more to it than that), but so what? Are you going to make a legal mandate that men have to agree to do 50% of family care tasks in a marriage? This is an individual decision in each relationship, not something we can legislate.

  22. #22
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    As for family care tasks, I don't disagree with you necessarily (though I think there's more to it than that), but so what? Are you going to make a legal mandate that men have to agree to do 50% of family care tasks in a marriage? This is an individual decision in each relationship, not something we can legislate.
    Jebus, don't give them ideas O Slayer of Bugs!
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Equal access to higher education? Women are the majority of students in higher ed. The ability to control reproductive choices? Contraception is widely and cheaply available, as is abortion.
    That was a comment about global access. Next comment was about US women specifically. Sorry, I didn't make that clear in my sentence structure.

    As for family care tasks, I don't disagree with you necessarily (though I think there's more to it than that), but so what? Are you going to make a legal mandate that men have to agree to do 50% of family care tasks in a marriage? This is an individual decision in each relationship, not something we can legislate.
    No, I would not legislate these family choices. But if educational opportunities and equal pay are the norm....along with comprehensive care for minor children and ageing seniors....it would translate into equal choices for men and women, and families in general.

    Historically, women 'stayed home' to care for babies, children, elderly, sick or infirm, cradle to grave. But that was because women didn't have the same education, opportunity, or pay/income as men. When push came to shove, it was a no-brainer who'd be "domestic" and who'd bring home the bacon. Even though times have changed drastically...women are STILL predominantly the ones tasked with caring for others. Often at the expense of their own career advancement and future earnings.

    We had a similar discussion about "stay at home caregivers", wiggin. In the US, only upper income earners have the 'luxury' of that argument, because they can hire nannies for kids, or home health aides for seniors. They can send their kids to private schools or boarding schools, or house their elderly parents in private nursing/retirement homes. But the general population can't do those things because they're too expensive. And it's usually women who take up that slack, which takes them out of the labor market....and ultimately the boardroom.

  24. #24
    The cost of a nanny or health aide is more then compensated for by the income from a professional career (and if they aren't going to make enough money to cover a nanny, they definitely aren't in a job that will lead to the boardroom). Sure, it costs money, but there are no free lunches.

    I believe firmly in equality of opportunity, but given equal opportunity I have no problem with inequality in outcome. What specific policy proposal do you think should be enacted that would somehow enhance equal opportunity?

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    The cost of a nanny or health aide is more then compensated for by the income from a professional career (and if they aren't going to make enough money to cover a nanny, they definitely aren't in a job that will lead to the boardroom). Sure, it costs money, but there are no free lunches.

    I believe firmly in equality of opportunity, but given equal opportunity I have no problem with inequality in outcome. What specific policy proposal do you think should be enacted that would somehow enhance equal opportunity?
    You're in a better position to address that paradox than I am, because your choices are on the line.

    My only living older-generation family member is my ex-father-in-law. He is now "housed" in a Senior Care facility with specialized Alzheimer's care, using his veteran benefits + corporate-defined pension plan + SS payments + Medicare. But that only came after family females tried tending to his needs, taking time off work, losing income, while also taking care of children and babies....


    *that effort was predominantly laid on his most local "family females", which included a small family business and a female executive.
    Last edited by GGT; 10-24-2012 at 06:19 PM. Reason: *

  26. #26
    You didn't answer my question. Is there a specific policy proposal you'd advocate? Otherwise, you can talk all you want, but at the end of the day these things have to be negotiated in each family. It has no bearing on issues of equal opportunity.

  27. #27
    As a concept I agree with it. At least in US, women wage is 80% of men's wage. Hispanic women wage is 59% of white men wage. It is quite weird for a nation that shows off with the idea of rights and equality.
    Freedom - When people learn to embrace criticism about politicians, since politicians are just employees like you and me.

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    You didn't answer my question. Is there a specific policy proposal you'd advocate? Otherwise, you can talk all you want, but at the end of the day these things have to be negotiated in each family. It has no bearing on issues of equal opportunity.
    But I did answer your question. Equal pay, equal opportunity, and family-oriented public policies. That's gender-neutral. That means women aren't the default caregivers when an economy tanks, or demographics are skewed.

  29. #29
    Equal pay for equal work I can get behind, though it's hard to know how much of that is discrimination and how much of that is guys being more aggressive on negotiating compensation. As I understand it, pay discrimination has been illegal for years, and it's actually gotten far easier to sue given the changes in the Lilly Ledbetter Act. Done.

    Equal opportunity is a pretty big catch-all. What specific policies do you want for this?

    Family-oriented public policies? Also pretty vague.

    Look, we all agree opportunity should be equal. But that doesn't mean that everyone is going to be working in the same jobs relative to their proportion in the population, or that they'll have the same pay/career outcomes. I don't have a problem with that. But I think that we're far closer to equal opportunity for both sexes than in the past, and it continues to get better as new generations with an egalitarian ethos move into the workforce. I don't see a pressing need to enact specific legislation that would mandate gender affirmative action. Do you?

    You seem to suggest in an earlier post here that it's important for more women to be in positions of power (presumably in the corporate world in particular). You also suggest that our system currently disadvantages women. I have yet to see you point to a specific part of our system that actually causes discrimination in opportunity that should be fixed.

  30. #30
    Women are primary caregivers due to genetics, not bigotry.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •