Firms could be forced to report on numbers of female MDs

Martin's posts on the removal of the glass ceiling sum up my feelings. But I must respond to John's comments about my earlier post.

You ask why I "seem to advocate a system that would push people into positions not based on their merit but on their gender".

I cannot see how you make this assumption about what I advocate based on my earlier post. I pointed out that what was being called for was for organisations to report on what they were doing to improve female reprsentation at senior levels. Reporting on action taken does not equate to giving jobs to people other than on merit. Actually, I favour taking the positive action which is currently permitted under legislation, which clearly falls short of the positive discrimination which would be represented by an employer giving jobs to women just because they are women. So sorry to disappoint you, I don't advocate positive discrimination.

You suggest that I have a "skewed view that women need help to reach senior positions" and that my supposed view exposes my "sexist mind set".

Again, I have not mentioned women needing help to get to the top. My belief is that many women have just as much capability of reaching senior positions as men without any help at all. But to echo Martin's comments, what some women need (as do some men) is for unnecessary and unfair obstacles to be removed. I certainly do believe that, whilst everybody faces challenges and obstacles on the way to the top, women face some particular challenges which are based on their gender. I wouldn't use the word "help" to describe the process of an organisation looking at whether it has gender based barriers preventing talented people getting on. It just seems to me like sensible business practice around identifying and making the best use of talent.

Finally, my own view of the approach I take is that I am "anti-sexist" - in other words, I try to do something about sexism when I see it in operation. I'm astonished that someone might see a person who is supportive of work to try to identify why women are under-represented at the top and to try to address this imbalance as being sexist! Don't psychologists talk of "projection" when we see others as being something we unconsciously recognise as what we are ourselves?

Dear me I appear to have hit a nerve. No need to be so personal John, this is an open forum and I gave my opinion. I agree that we come from different worlds, which I am happy about. The decisions which I make in the workplace are directly associated with large scale strategic management of fire safety and health and safety and as such business considerations are largely secondary when it comes to the safety of people, although financial considerations obviously play a major role, which I also have to manage. So hardly unexpectedly you are wrong, as the decisions I make have significant weight, in terms of people's safety, business legal compliance and emergency/continuity planning. Good judgement on your part again!

No, it doesn't.

Appointing someone to a senior position is not something to be taken lightly and can and often does have a big impact of the health of a business.

I look to my fellow directors for advice and direction, they are trusted individuals, they are there because of merit and their ability to achieve what needs to be achieved. Not because we needed to fill a quota for a certain type of person. If we did, then the person certainly wouldn't be trusted. Such a position needs to be earned or the position is worthless.

I think it's grossly unfair of you to tar everyone with the same brush as the few that make bad business decisions based on their own prejudice because it's clear to me that these people are in a very small minority as I see Women in senior positions all the time.

Bad business decisions make bad businesses and bad businesses fail.

Besides, I don't really think this legislation will go anywhere, it's un-enforceable to say the least.

I think you and me come from very different worlds Martin, I know I live in a world where decisions mater and can have an impact on business and therefore peoples jobs and livelihoods. I'm not sure what world you live in, but it's not the same as mine. Because based on your logic, I hope your decisions don't have much weight, or you are one of those "bad business decision" makers dragging everyone down with you.

We agree that the best person should get the job, but we come to that conclusion from different perspectives. How about I turn the question around and say hypothetically that every employment decision should be open to external review? It may well be that some employers who are taking people on are doing so on the basis of decisions which are not totally based on business requirement, and that those employers may not even be aware that their decisions are biased.
I am presuming that you are an employer John and that you are fair and equitable, but there are those who would rather take on a man instead of a woman for their own ill-informed prejudicial bigoted reasons. They are the problem, not me.
The problem was not sorted out by self-regulation which is why more legislation is coming into play to get employers to do the right thing. In some public sector organisations, if the interviewee has the right qualifications, meets the person specification and does a reasonable interview, it is very difficult not to take the person on. Normally, that would be great, but as we all know it is more than just about what training courses a person has attended. In this scenario, HR would insist that the person is installed as they fit the person spec even if the person was a nightmare to work with for whatever reason. John, you would have no control over who you took on. Sound famaliar?

"Only the removal of unfair ones, in whatever form they take."

Can you give an example of the rules that you want to be removed?

"Best person should get the job, and if the best person does not get that job then the organisation is losing a better asset than they end up employing."

Now that is common sense, and businesses know it. Which is why I'm against any legislation that forces me to do the opposite. Dare I say, we seem to be agreeing Martin?

Only the removal of unfair ones, in whatever form they take. Best person should get the job, and if the best person does not get that job then the organisation is losing a better asset than they end up employing.

"I am not proposing positive action or gender based preference, just an even set of rules."

What rules are you proposing?

How can the removal of discrimination be discriminatory? Also, I am not proposing positive action or gender based preference, just an even set of rules. The glass ceiling does exist. You just refuse to see it. By extension, that indicates that you seem to believe that more women do not secure more top roles because they are not good enough. That is obviously your problem, but I doubt that you can see that either.
Making everything fair and transparent would encourage more applications, not restrict them.

Your "common sense" involves employing the very discrimination you claim to oppose. Your logic is backwards.

Capable Women, same as capable Men have no problem getting into senior positions. That is plain fact, if there is a discrepancy in the numbers, then capable Women might be encouraged to apply for positions, but under no circumstances should they be given preference based on their gender.

That is fair, that is common sense.

This perception of a glass celing which is always raised and promoted by people with your mind set goes towards discouraging Women from applying for such positions. You are part of the problem.

Cobblers. It is about removing the glass ceiling, and allowing those with most merit the opportunity to get that top role whether they are men or women. At the moment it is obvious that there are blocks to women getting some top roles, and these blocks, whatever form they take, should be removed to let the best person get the job. No PC, inequality or sexist stance, just common sense.

David

It it's wasting talent that you are concerned with then why do you seem to advocate a system that would push people into positions not based on their merit but on their gender? The very definition of the inequality that you claim to oppose.

The fact that you hold this skewed view that Women need help to reach senior positions exposes your sexist mind set.

You refer to the "PC gone mad" theme. If that is your view and you're not just trolling for a response then yes, when people talk about the PC gone mad brigade, they are tallking about YOU!

"Want to tell companies/are about to start telling companies who they should employ to run their businesses"? That's not what this is about at all. What's being called for is for organisations to report on what they are doing to improve female representation at the most senior levels. No compulsion to do anything about it. But I'm not at all surprised to read posts based around the "PC gone mad" theme - anything connected with trying to achieve greater equality always seems to get that response.
I just don't get what you have against the notion that it's worth looking at why people from the majority group (working age women) who seem now to be performing better through the education system continue to be hugely under-represented at the top of organisations. It looks to me like we are wasting talent.

Its a funny old world. The economy goes down the toilet, banks crashing after dodgy lending, all sorts of high level corporate catastrophies both at business and national level. Maybe it is time to legislate to ensure more women are in decision making posts cos they couldnt have made as big a snafu as the men in power. The incestuous self recruitment that has populated UK plc's higher levels for generations appears to have produced idiot offspring.

" want to tell companies who they should employ to run their businesses."

I think you mean - "are about to start telling companies who they should employ to run their businesses."

And it appears Gordon Brown is 100% behind this!

The article refers to some 60% of people....huh? what demographic and how many is 60%?

Everyone knows, statistics presented in such a way are not worth anything on their own. It's the equivalent of saying "when asked if the new legislation should go ahead, people agreed."

You couldn't make it up, really.

They've managed to bankrupt the UK PLC and now this bunch of morons running our country want to tell companies who they should employ to run their businesses. They are legislating to force companies to adopt the same management structure that they have employed whilst presiding over the total destruction of our economy and burdened the nation with so much debt that it will take many generations to repay it. What could their agenda possibly be? There's no evidence whatsoever that they act in the interests of the country they currently govern.