Women in Business

Last week Michelle McDowell won the Veuve Clicquot businesswoman of the year award. A quite outstanding engineer, Michelle McDowell has driven the architectural/engineering business, BDP, forward in an extremely tough market.  But the one thing that annoys me every year is that the winner is always asked the same two banal questions: “How tough is it being a woman in business?” and “Do you agree with positive discrimination for women?”

The first question is easy, I have never heard a woman answer that being a woman in business is a breeze.  In fact, ask any man the same question and you’ll get the exactly the same answer, “it’s tough, very tough”.  No one wants to admit that the achievement of a prize was easy and why should they?  But the second question is the killer, no matter how it is answered the respondent will always end up being chastised one way or another.

A neat side step is to talk about ‘positive action’ to promote and encourage women into and up the ladder of a business career. However, some people support the notion of ‘quotas’.  One of them is the non executive director of Standard Life, Sheelagh Whittaker, who recently said in an interview for the BBC “I am a big supporter of quotas. I believe that we will only have true equality when we have as many incompetent women in positions of power as incompetent men!" This made me laugh out loud, because it is such a deep an honest truth. 

The sad part is that after millions of years of evolution, and three thousand years of non nomadic social development, news reporters seem to be unable to ignore the urge to ask the same stupid questions.  Next year I hope it will be different, that the interview will be a deeper and more meaningful exchange of ideas, in a time slot of more than the normal allotted thirty seconds of air time.

Discrimination exists, fact.  What we do about it is a news item in itself.  Personally I like quotas because not only do they force people to seek out and promote talent in areas where, if they were honest, they might not have looked so hard before, but they also create the environment within which change can happen.

Have a good week,

Harley

Submitted by harley on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 07:21

Comments

The issue is worth a serious debate as it raises fundamental points of principle.
There is undeniably still discrimination between men and women that needs to be tackled to create a true level playing field. However, quotas are definitely not a good method, as they consist in fighting discrimination through discrimination. Would we then also consider fighting crime through crime?
Besides, I would call on each human being (whether man or woman) to reflect one moment how s/he would personally react if sidestepped in any selection process to the benefit of a quota person (who, by definition, would not win on merit but by merely belonging to the right category).
BTW, as an employer I have historically employed more women than men... and I cannot understand why men would "repeatedly seem to choose for men when promoting staff". Is this really a man vs. woman issue? Would some women not also naturally promote women, while others would definitely not?

Submitted by phw on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 14:18.

Thanks for this article. At least three times a year I get a journalist on the phone who asks me about this question. I always respond the same, because I think that it is necessary to put some humour in his article: “men without a belly are not taken seriously too”. I was 23 years old when I got out talking about wine , often for a whole bunch of men with an average of 50 years old, and I have to admit that some people where shocked to see a young woman in front of them. Now, when the first wrinkle has arrived, it seems that I can only shock men with a cane .
A wine buzz woman

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 13:55.

This might seem strange to hear me say that I am pleased that two of my readers have actively condemned my support of quotas, but its true!

As is probably perfectly clear to my regular readers I am not a politician and probably for good reason.  I totally agree that in many areas 'quotas' have been disastrous and trying to apply 'quota's' to women in business would be extremely difficult and in some cases plainly ridiculous. However, I have grown through so many periods where equal rights for women have been high on political agendas and up until now I have seen very little result, especially in key leadership roles in business.  My experience of working for and with women bosses has always been very favorable and generally it is true to say that those women that make it to senior positions are usually by far the strongest candidates.

So my reasoning for some kind of quota (call it a guideline, if you will) is that simply tackling equality as matter of principle is not enough.  Businesses and 'society' also need to make some structural changes, not only for childcare at work but also for the whole way they expect employees (both male and female) to work in conventional office settings.  Too often a woman 'at the top' simply reinforces the status quo, rather than radically trying to change it. After all, let's be fair they have a business to run!

To the quote that made me laugh, it is obviously not that I want incompetant women or men in leadership roles, but wouldn't it be nice if one day we really did achieve a position where people were purely selected on their ability, and that there was more or less an equal number of women or men to choose from?  That if there were more men than women (or vice versa) in a company it was purely on the basis of supply and demand and personal career choice?  

Maybe there is a study somewhere that clearly demonstrates why it is that men repeatedly seem to choose for men when promoting staff?  Please don't tell me that it is only for their fear of women taking time off to have children, especially now in many EU countries, where men too can take long breaks on the birth of their children. 

I for one, would be very interested to explore how diversity in all its areas could and should be tackled in the work place.  And not just (as I recently witnessed) by some patronizing director talking about 'the problem of women' and 'how to look after their children during working hours!'

Harley 

Submitted by harley on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 18:31.

Dear Harley,
In advance, apologies for my straight talk. But, was there ever bigger nonsense than quotas???? We have abolished quotas everywhere else (food quotas, production quotas, racial quotas, trade quotas...) because we know that they DISTORT society, the economy, whatever. Do we need women (supposedly so much wiser than men) to force them down our throats again... and men who side with this nonsense? The only thing we need is a true non-discriminatory level playing field. The rest is open to competition. This applies to all genders - for women in business and politics as much as for men in health and education. It is truly surprising how "communist" concepts that have been tested and proven blatantly wrong find their way stealthily back into our 21st century societal debate. Is it because of the intellectual debacle of neo-liberalism? Is it some cyclical phenomenon that makes us go around in circles? Is it intellectual laziness (aka political correctness)?
For the information of your readership, in case it is not obvious, the present author is male and is getting tired of being bombarded day in and day out with decadent baby boomer's babble. THE priority in our society is not getting more women into high profile jobs at all costs, but more young people into work in the first place!

Submitted by phw on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 09:26.

Dear Harley,
First of all, thank you very much to dedicate your time to the "female cause". Your perception that "discrimination exists, fact" is, alas, true. In a developed country like Austria, women in the same position as men earn considerably less. This needs to change. I am, though, less amused than you when I read that "we will only have true equality when we have as many incompetent women in positions of power as incompetent men!" and that you, as a result (?), defend the quota. The quota is an easy way out: for politicians, for men and most of all, for (incompetent) women. In former days, the career of some women went through the bed of the boss, nowadays, a law suffices. What is the difference? I want to be in a "position" out of my merits, not thanks to my sex. As an employer, I want to employ the most competent, not the woman (unless she is the most competent!). I do not want incompetent women in addition to incompetent men! Economy and society can simply not afford it. A competent woman cannot but fight the quota - which I do wherever I can!
Sincerely,
Margaretha

Submitted by Margaretha Mazura on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 09:08.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.

Content subject to copyright, Harley Lovegrove 2011