Why boardrooms need to be more diverse

The benefits of diversity in the workplace are common knowledge: different ways of looking at a problem, different personal styles, different biases, and the ability to appeal to different types of customers and clients. The benefits to a company’s bottom line are clear and measurable.

That being the case, why has the pace of change been so slow? Take the case of UK professional working women. Women occupy a mere 12.5% of boardroom seats in companies in the FTSE 100 index, despite their academic and work credentials. The percentage of women in board positions in smaller companies is even smaller – 7.9 percent. And there has been little change in the past five years.

In some countries, such as Norway and Spain, the government has legislated that 40 percent of board seats must be occupied by female directors, and other European countries are moving in the same direction. Fortunately, the UK has not yet resorted to such tactics.

Imposing quotas is demeaning, implying that female directors have benefited from tokenism and are sitting on boards merely because of their gender, rather than their merit.

Also, it is reasonable to wonder what kind of female candidates vain rious companies will settle for as they race to fill quotas by arbitrarily set deadlines. In the longer term that will harm both the individual women as well as the idea of increased diversity in the boardroom.

There are three key arguments in favour of increasing female representation in the boardroom:

• First, there is a larger pool of female talent available. Date shows that more than 60 percent of university graduates are female – many of whom are entering the professions and are very ambitious.
• Second, women account for approximately half the population, and in turn, approximately half the potential clients for any business. Keep the two in similar proportion is simply common sense.
• Third, boardroom chemistry, debate and decision-making benefit from the different skills, mindsets and style that women or other diversity groups bring to the table.

It is important to remember that this problem does not just affect women. Many, if not most, businesses today serve multi-cultural societies in global markets. This strengthens the case for increasing all types of diversity in boardrooms.

This does not mean that board can or should neglect selection based on merit, but companies must recognise that diversity on the board can add real value. The risk is low and the rewards are high.

Congratulations to Dawn Milman-Hurst, Entrepreur of the Year

We would like to congratulate Dawn Milman-Hurst, Managing Director of Diversity recruitment specialists Equal Approach, who has been named Entrepreneur of the Year at the 2010 Burton Mail Business Awards.

The awards, a celebration of business excellence across East Staffordshire and South Derbyshire, took place at the Pirelli Stadium and were attended by over 250 businessmen and women. Dawn was named Entrepreneur of the Year for successfully identifying a niche in the market and turning it into a profitable business which reaps positive rewards both for candidates and businesses. She said, “I am delighted to have won this award. My aim has always been to establish Equal Approach as a trailblazer in diversity recruitment and this helps to raise awareness of what we do and the positive impact it has for all involved. I would like to thank the team here at Equal Approach for their commitment to promoting the benefits of equality and diversity within an organisation. There is a huge amount of diverse talent to be embraced and our whole ethos is around removing any perceived barriers to achieve equality of opportunity.”

Established in 2005, Equal Approach embraces equal opportunities and diversity in all of its business activities, offering consultative recruitment solutions by working in partnership with both clients and applicants to produce results that directly and positively impact on their business objectives.

Equal Approach works in partnership with a wide portfolio of organisations throughout the UK, within the Private, Public and Third Sectors, to remove perceived barriers and allow access to the most senior positions within the UK to the widest range of people and skills.

For further details of Equal Approach visit: www.equalapproach.com

The one best job search tool? Networking

The last few weeks have seen a complete upheaval in the UK job market. At least 490,000 are scheduled to lose their jobs or not be replaced when they retire. And this will have a ripple effect on other parts of the employment market. it is definitely a bitter pill to swallow although many will have absolutely no choice.

So what to do if you find yourself mid-career and having to pick up and start again?

You lost your job and you don't have the first clue where you should start looking for another one? Happens all the time. People are often so ill-prepared to start over again. While you may not have been happy in your previous job, you were probably comfortable there. The old saying "Better the devil you know ..." didn't come from out of the blue. It's true. You may also still be angry at your ex-employer for putting you in this position to begin with and it's probably reasonable to guess that you are probably in shock.

Coming to terms with your new reality is an important starting point. But only a starting point. There are some things you can do to undertake an effective job search and find new employment. First, you have to surround yourself with people who are positive and help you feel positive. The same is true of placing yourself in a positive physical environment. You cannot afford to slip into the doldrums right now. t's also important to realize the even if you do these things, the path will not likely be straight or simple. There will be lots of ups and downs.

But the most important thing you can do to help yourself is to get out there and see people. Call your old business contacts, join professional associations and go to the monthly meetings. Smile a lot and speak to people. The easiest and most comforting thing to do at these times is to stay home and turn on your computer, but you have to fight the urge to do that too much. If you find it difficult at first, set modest networking goals for the first week or month. But you have to continue to add to those initial goals. Set up lunch dates. Go to parties. Call people you haven't talked to in a while. The best way to find a new job is through your contacts.

You still can't have it all

In the 1980s when the younger baby boomers were coming of age, there was a very strong perception in the workplace that women could have it all – a challenging and successful career as well as a fulfilled personal life. And of course, many women wanted that. The problem was that there was no such thing and a lot of women learned that the hard way.

There is an old saying that if it sounds too good to be true it probably is. Women having it all fits into this category.

The truth is that equal opportunity for women is really no closer than it was 30 years ago. There are a few reasons for this. First, the culture in which women are working to achieve remains a culture defined by men. And second, because women have more than one role to fill in our society, total achievement in one area means sacrifices in another.

Women will always struggle in the workforce as long as they are the primary caretakers for both their children and frequently, their aging parents. It is not possible to take on a very responsible leadership position unless you are prepared to ignore the people who need you and depend on you.

It is also ironic that men gain respect when they become parents. They are perceived to be more responsible and reliable because they are breadwinners with mouths to feed. Women, on the other hand, often see their careers stalled because they became parents.

For women to achieve corporate success on their own terms means sacrifice. Sacrificing children. Sacrificing husbands and partners. Sacrificing sitting at the bedsides of ailing parents. Sacrificing me time. Those are big sacrifices that often cannot be corrected somewhere down the road.

There was a greeting card in circulation about 15 years ago. On the cover was a Lichtenstein-like cartoon character woman who was crying dramatically. The caption read: “Oh no, I forgot to have children.”

At the time, it was a funny card. Today, the message sounds sad. Walking away from family might well be the price that women have to pay to succeed at work. Or worse still, having children and then neglecting them for the sake of one’s career.

Forty years into the women’s movement and in many ways nothing has changed: if you want a top-level job with big responsibility then you are going to have to make sacrifices either at work or at home. Women are no more like men than they ever were. Many family responsibilities automatically fall on women’s shoulders even if they have wonderful nannies and or supportive husbands.

However, to play in a man’s world a woman has to be available for a man’s hours. Today, that means 24/7 and a lot of compromises.

The government’s age-related recruitment messages are contradictory

Is it discriminatory to insist that someone retire at 65? For some people who feel good, young-at-heart and want to keep working, the answer is a resounding yes. However, for others, reaching the holy grail of retirement at 65 is a well-earned gift.

But like it or not, it seems that the days of compulsory retirement at 65 are about to become a thing of the past. Of course, that does not mean that the British people are going to go quietly into the night. The government, for example, is facing growing anger from business groups over plans to phase out the default retirement age by October next year.

According to leading business groups, this doesn’t give companies much time to prepare. It also leaves them with many unresolved issues. For example: how to address an employee’s future after 65? While companies may have senior employees with a lot of valuable experience, they want to maintain control of managing their workforces as suits them.

As people reach 65 they will begin to worry about where they stand in the employment mix. Is a young inexperienced employee more valuable than an older, experienced one? And unfortunately, employers may not have the answers. And what if the older employee feels forced to leave their job? Will that constitute age discrimination?

It surely won’t be simple.

There will need to be more than a code of practice to address these practical issues; we will need changes in the law to deal more effectively with difficult employment situations."

At this point employers are feeling squeezed at both ends. On one hand they feel compelled to hire younger, less experienced people to help reduce youth unemployment. And now, on the other hand, the government is making retirement an outdated concept.

Something is going to have to give.

Pretty or pretty good

There was recently an article in the papers about how attractive people were more likely to get jobs than less attractive people and I think that that is a sad statement about our society.

There are so many old sayings about this that they are too many to list. Beauty is only skin deep and beauty is in the eye of the beholder, are just two.

What I cannot understand is why someone would choose outward appearances over skills and ability when it comes to hiring. Are people really that shallow and short-sighted? And what does that about ugly or less attractive people? Is this sexism under a different name?

I was raised to believe that hard work, reliability, being good for your word and other silly notions like that we what made a good person, and by extension, a good employee. However, this does not seem to be the case.

If beauty is the most reliable criteria for success then being less attractive has become a liability and the beginnings of a new diversity category. And similar to the other categories of diversity, beyond one’s control. We cannot control how beautiful we are anymore than we can control our gender or our sexual preferences.

And I cannot understand why we should be judged by these criteria rather than criteria that are related directly to our ability to do a job and do it well.
There are already too many areas of diversity that separate groups of people from the main. Adding another category simply moves us in the wrong direction which is away from a more unified society where potential employees are judged from their abilities and nothing else.

I found a quote by the playwright Henrik Ibsen on the internet. It says:” A thousand words will not leave so deep an impression as one deed.” It is sad to think that someone as clever as Ibsen would be dismissed as naive in today’s working world. I checked his picture and he wasn’t that attractive.

E. Ward

Why don’t women get paid the same as men?

I am suspicious of the gender pay gap. I suspect that there is some key information missing from the story.

If you have a woman cleaning your house or a man, do you pay them differently? I don’t. From my perspective, all that matters is that the house is cleaned. Who cleans it; the colour of their skin; the religion they observe; their sexual preference and so on, mean absolutely nothing. And frankly the same is true of office workers.

However, in the corporate world, there are other criteria that are factored into the pay formula. The number of hours worked; experience; time off for maternity and other leave; education; non-educational skills and more.

Female workers generally work less hours because they tend to be the primary home makers and child carers. This factor must be kept in mind when interpreting the wage ratio. And whether we like it or not, men are often freer to pursue their career goals unhindered by family obligations if they so choose.

That doesn’t mean that there aren’t exceptions.

In 2009 David R. Hekman, an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, and colleagues found that customers prefer white men over equally-well performing women and minority employees, which may help explain why white men continue to earn more than other types of employees.

Similarly, economist and social critic Thomas Sowell stated in the book, Civil Rights, marriage is the main variable driving the wage gap -- that married women make less than other types of workers.

Any disparity that exists between the wages earned by men and women can be accounted for by women's demand for flexibility, fewer hours, and less travel in their careers.
The truth is that the gender wage gap is a by-product of professional women who want it all. They have good educations and professional experience. However, they have other priorities besides making money. They want job flexibility and personal-life fulfilment more than men do. Men are more likely to measure their self worth based on money and their pay cheques. They are willing to spend more hours in the office and they are willing to do many physically demanding jobs that most women would never consider.

There will always be exceptions to the informal rules because there are always people who have different motivations. But the bottom line is that most people – men and women – fit into the traditional categories.

However, the women’s movement has made a place for itself in western society by never being satisfied. What opportunities don’t women have in the Western world? They can go to medical school, they can dig ditches, they can become police officers, they can stay at home. They can work full or part-time. But each choice they make comes with a financial price tag. Each decision has rewards and consequences. The wonderful thing about our society, is that each person can choose to work – and get paid -- according to their priorities. I suspect that individual freedom of choice in the western world has never been higher.

Kathy MacKeigan
Newcastle