Just after research was released on the increase among U.S. women’s education and earning levels, the New York Times published an interesting article on women in the boardroom.
In 2002, Norway became the first country in the world to introduce a quota for females on company boards: 40% or bust.
Feminists, misogynists, and everyone in between have waited with bated breath, and seven years later some preliminary results are in. They are decidedly mixed.
Dissenters of affirmative action-type policies will make the point that when you go out of your way to include people who haven’t been included before, you’ll get a smaller pool of highly qualified people to pick from.
I do think there’s some truth to that, but it makes sense. Given that women by and large haven’t have had as many opportunities to rise to the executive level, there are fewer qualified women waiting in the wings. The idea is to change that. In this case it’s putting the cart before the horse to remind her that she’s strong, capable, and has a job to do. Giddyap!
There was a lot riding on this policy. A main hope was that seeing more women in board positions would lure more female executives out of the woodwork. But nearly a decade after the quota was enacted, that still hasn’t happened.
Then of course there’s the age-old pickle of how to be a mother and an aggressive career woman in a cutthroat world, a mess even MacGyver would be hard-pressed to wiggle out of. It’s extremely difficult for women to compete non-stop in a career when they have children. Progressive maternity leave policies in Europe in a way have hindered women further by providing ample time off which translates into setbacks, while draconian maternity leave policies in the US have also hurt women because they are often forced to choose between family or success. I have seen this first-hand and dread the day when the conundrum becomes personal.
There were big designs, hopes and dreams that increasing the number of women on corporate boards would be the silver bullet, boosting company performance inside and out. There are instances where that has happened, and instances where it hasn’t. To that, I say, are we expecting too much of women?
Or rather, are we projecting generalizations about women onto women in the boardroom, expecting them to be highly functioning, successful, and…magic? (And cook a pot roast during the lunch hour?)
Besides, 40% is still a minority. Let’s push the quota to 70% and see what happens. Let’s also give the policy another decade before we judge its success. Old habits die a very slow, long death.
I think the deeper is question is which is worth more: the improved economic outcome of a company due to increased females/increased diversity (meaning, was this the original goal), OR the sheer importance, in and of itself, of cracking open an institution of prejudice? (Was this the goal?) I mean, both would be great, but if I have to choose, the former is good but the latter is great. Its ripples are wide.
Despite slow uptake in female executives – a complicated, multi-pronged problem for sure – there are large positive implications of this policy. One is the greater social change it’s effecting, as other countries like France and Netherlands are following suit. Two is starting the conversation about gender inequality as a persistent problem in the 21st century. That’s evolution, my friends.
While more studies are needed to discern just how the new quota has affected the corporate, feminist, and social justice worlds, such aggressive policies are needed to cajole greater equality among the sexes.
The process of enacting these policies, irrespective of their successes or wobbles, is magnanimous and justified in itself. As the lady boss of all lady bosses, Gloria Steinem, said,
“power can be taken but not given. The process of the taking is empowerment itself.”