How would you feel if you’d been given a chance to get ahead in your career because the government thought it would be a good idea to address a gender imbalance and give the girls more opportunities in a predominantly male environment?
That’s sort of what happened in Norway, a couple of years ago, when a law was passed making it compulsory for Norwegian companies to appoint 40% of women to their management boards.
Alarmingly, as reported at the time in The Times Online, out of 611 companies, 470 did not have one female board member and women occupied just over 6% of all the board positions.
The law may be one way of getting to the top but is the Norwegian government sending out the right message by enforcing such a sea change? Could the gender divide widen as a result of this mandatory ruling? Is enforcement from the powers that be the only way to break into the boys’ club of business?
One former Conservative minister dead against similar proposals once suggested by pre-Prime Minister David Cameron, is Ann Widdecombe. She said she would be would be “grossly insulted” by such a move.
In an ideal world a woman would be merited with a place on the board for the simple fact that she’s earned her place through hard graft. One criticism of the law is that the calibre of women now appointed to the boardroom just isn’t high enough.
In the short-term at least, this seems to be true as a study from the University of Michigan suggests that the six-fold increase in women as directors has not brought with it any real rise in the number of women as chief executives.
While I would love to be told I had been given a job because the boundaries have just been broadened, I would always have a nagging voice in my ear that I wasn’t in the original line-up, which is exactly the point made by Anna Dugdale mentor and board director of the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust who says “You would never know if you were there on your own merit or owing to some legal requirement”.
Ideally the calibre of candidates will be equal, whatever the gender, but if that is the case then these women are entitled to an equal chance of getting into the locker room. It isn’t just about experience – is it possible that more women would fight harder for these places if they thought their efforts would be rewarded?
Which is a point made by Danish Economist Benja Stig-Fagerland. She’s in the enviable position of receiving the “female citizen of the year” accolade for her work on the Norwegian Female Future project. The project set out to invite companies to go ‘pearl diving’ for women in their ranks whose talents have not been fully recognised, to nurture and utilise them.
As Stig says: to “focus on talent regardless of gender”. She adds: “Power is not something handed out, it is something you have to take”, so maybe the oh-so-nineties’ Girl Power is back on the agenda.
It’s also suggested there’s could be a bit of a clique old girls’ club leaving the young ladies behind, but what about us older mothers? Where do we fit in? I’ve just been chatting to a friend about returning to work after having children and whether or not our career-paths are conditioned by motherhood? When we hear the word ‘board’ it has more to do with monotony than management.
We laughed at how our fight has taken flight; she is an artist who admits her graphics work has lost its graphic edge since becoming a mother. I thought nothing of working a 10-hour day followed by a 3-hour stint in traffic, pre-kids. How do women maintain their careers’ longevity when so many compromises loom on the horizon when motherhood rears its challenging head? What pearl-like talents do we need to nurture and dive for?
We can’t all be Nicola Horlick but there’s no harm using her for inspiration and believing that a future for board women is not a futile ambition. It will be interesting to see if our new government follows in Norway’s footsteps…
