Alison Cooper: what glass ceiling?

Following a new UK government enquiry led by former trade minister Lord Davies of Abersoch, FTSE 100 companies have been asked to increase the percentage of women on their boards. According to Lord Davies, by 2015 FTSE 100 companies should endeavour to have a minimum of 25% female board representation and if little or no progress is made in that time, more rigid targets may be set. In less than a week, the words ‘boardroom’ and  ‘quota’ have sparked much debate in Britain, particularly amongst businesswomen who either see it as a patronising attempt by the government to gain more female board members or as an apt solution to ensuring career success for women.

Nicola Horlick, founder and CEO of Bramdean Asset Management LLP, supports the idea of positive discrimination as a means of forcing companies to elect more female board members, though not everyone feels the same. Alison Cooper, Imperial Tobacco’s new chief executive, was one of the first to argue that positive discrimination was not the way forward for women as it was not based on merit. Cooper’s opinion is not hard to register as she is merely asking for women to gain success based on their talent and achievements as opposed to their gender. However, this is the same woman who claims to have never noticed a glass ceiling in her climb to the boardroom. Regardless of Cooper’s assertion about the glass ceiling, a recent study carried out by The Institute of Leadership & Management (ILM), entitled ‘Ambition and Gender at Work’, found that three quarters of women believe there are barriers preventing them from progressing to the top level of management.

Despite these concerns, women such as Liz Barber, finance director and board member at Kelda and Helen Weir, head of retail banking at Lloyds Banking Group have both argued against the quota. Thus we are led to the question Lord Davies may have to answer if voluntary compliance does not work: ‘if the idea of a quota is deemed patronising and insulting by professional women, the same women who acknowledge the difficulty of entering the boardroom, how can more women gain those senior roles without losing their credibility?’

Looking at the obstacles women face may shed some light on why men seem to rule the boardroom. According to the ‘Ambition and Gender at Work’ study, 42% of women had taken statutory maternity leave and 21% had left work to care for children beyond this whilst only 9% of men had taken paternity leave and 2% had left to care for children. Clearly women feel more obliged to stay at home. It seems women are faced with only two choices, either becoming the traditional stay-at-home mum or taking on the role of breadwinner.

The study also revealed that more women felt that they could not gain that senior role and as a result have lower ambitions than men. Are women harming their own careers by lacking the confidence needed to compete with men? Perhaps this is one of the reasons behind top companies having more male leadership. If women lack confidence then this will no doubt harm their applications for promotion, if they apply at all. This lack of confidence would seem to run counter to statistics that show how girls excel in regards to their male counterparts when it comes to education.

With regards to the quota, what Lord Davies is offering is clearly a quick, easy solution which bypasses the depth of the problem women face in the workplace, such as maternity leave, raising a family and competing in male-dominated industries. What may be needed is a long term solution which provides employees, both male and female, with the flexibility needed to both raise a family and still carry out their responsibilities within the workplace.

Do we really need boardroom quotas?

However, Lord Davies is not alone in his implementation to solve the boardroom dilemma as other European countries have also tried to improve gender diversity in the work place. Norway has already introduced quotas as have France and Spain. Norway introduced the 40% quota in 2004 after voluntary compliance failed to make any difference. The target was soon met as 44% of women claimed their seat in the boardroom. It seems if voluntary compliance fails in Britain, we may just see the government enact a tactic similar to Norway, but is it necessary when there are women who have become successful in their own right, without any government measures?

The report issued by Lord Davies may focus on the lack of women in the boardrooms but it does little in the way of finding out the reason why and yet a solution has already been issued. Lord Davies may want to consider what it is women actually want before he forces companies to include more women in the boardroom. As some critics of the quota have already pointed out, a quota may place more women at the top, but this runs the risk of placing women who haven’t yet obtained the knowledge and skills to take on a more senior role. The last thing women want is to be placed in a role for reasons other than those based on merit and they certainly do not want to be placed there unarmed and ripe for humiliation. We want women to get to the top and stay there, and no short term solution from the UK government will attain that goal.