Female Quotas

In “A Nordic Mystery” (Schumpeter, 15.11.14), The Economist picked up on the first “substantial study of Norwegian reforms” principally relating to the introduction of board membership quotas. Since 2003 the board of directors of public companies in Norway must comprise a minimum of 40% women and a minimum of 40% men; moreover any companies that do not comply are simply delisted. Throughout the world, the ‘Norwegian’ model has been heralded as a success (cf. my article of last year diversity quotas) and as an example for others to follow in terms of managing quotas; however has it really worked?

There are now more women on the boards of public companies; however companies “fled the stock market as the quotas were phased in: Norway’s stock of listed firms fell from 563 in 2003 to 179 in 2008.” Furthermore, only 6% of listed firms had a female chief executive in 2013 (cf. 2% in 2001, but cf. 5% of USA Fortune 500 companies today). Besides quotas at the ‘top’ of the corporate environment, the Norwegian society affords both generous social policies and an egalitarian culture that facilitates equality at the ‘bottom.’ The challenge remains in the ‘middle’ and in particular for women leaders: “visit a typical Nordic company… and you will notice the senior managers are still mostly men.”

The study (by Univ. of Chicago Booth business school) concluded that “there is no evidence that these gains at the top trickled down.” They have not improved the career prospects of highly qualified women below board level; not helped close the gender pay gap; and not encouraged younger women to go to business school. Why? It appears that at the ‘top’ the quotas are “too prescriptive” for only a select group in a select role which does not strengthen the career ladder for women as a whole; whereas at the ‘bottom’ ‘female-friendly’ social policies “makes life easier for women but does not encourage them to aim higher.”

Evidently there is a dynamic in play that needs to be strengthened. Here’s how:

Female Quotas 

The quotas were put in place to redress the balance of women in business. 60% of graduates in Scandinavia are female: the principle is not just to ensure the balance at the top, but at everylevel in the corporate environment. Schumpeter proposes two key ways to strengthen the female quota dynamic:

Leadership Pipeline

If the target is to have 40% female senior leaders, then the leadership pipeline might need to start with 60% female junior leaders. Companies should “include plenty of women among the high-flyers selected for challenging assignments.”

Senior leaders “should take their role as mentors seriously.” Mentoring is vital for leadership development especially when female leaders have to navigate difficult-to-see, negative cultural forces.

Making a Balanced Environment

“Employers should encourage, not penalize, fathers who take parenting breaks, and let them work flexible hours so they can do the school run.”

“Selection committees should stop putting so much emphasis on continuity of service, and penalizing women who take career breaks to care for young children.”

Et alors

Interesting points, but it might be possible to go further already. Within the context of considering female quotas to be a temporary measure to redress the balance, why not have quotas at every level in the corporate hierarchy to strengthen the career ladder? These quotas could be removed once full equity has been achieved; but without which there is likely to be a ‘whole in the middle’ for a while to come. If the female career ladder is not strong enough then the companies might resort to looking to recruit externally to achieve the ‘top’ quotas: this potentially then worsens the situation by demotivating and discouraging internal candidates in the ‘middle’ levels. It may even lead to reduced retention of female talent as they either retreat from the ‘tournament;’ or, to ‘win the tournament,’ they start to change companies themselves.

Regarding absences, it also might be possible to go further. When women have a child, some cultural norms tend to frame the question as ‘child or career’; whereas when men have a child, the same cultural norms do not present the same question: the man may assume there is noquestion and/or a child and a career can both be achieved without any detriment to either. There is a twofold approach to solving this which builds on Schumpeter’s suggestions: 1/ make sure parental absence for either parent is not detrimental to their career, not only avoiding the penalization of absences in career planning but actually promoting, encouraging and rewarding absences; and 2/ more specifically to men – make paternity leave mandatory – this is assuming the first point is fully addressed and might also change the cultural norms…

There is also a possible further key issue to address. How to break the indifference of men who currently hold the senior leadership positions? This is potentially one of the biggest barriers to the promotion of any type of diversity. The male senior managers might not be against diversity per se, but it’s just not on their agenda. Further, if they do stop to think about diversity, then they might suggest that some women will ascend the career ladder if they are ‘good enough’ – a genuine (albeit misguided) belief that there are no barriers and there is equal opportunity… To take male business leaders ‘beyond’ this, female quotas need to be ‘sold’ (and not just ‘imposed’). The benefits of diversity (and the need for quotas) should to be ‘marketed’ so that the current senior leaders know ‘what’s in it for them.’ When the male senior managers themselves start to actively promote diversity, the male-female balance in the workplace might start to be fully redressed!