Quotas

Earlier this month, Suffragette hit UK movie screens and the Women's Equality Party launched its policy platform. The party established by the heirs of the suffragettes has attracted 45,000 members in a few short months. It is clear that the debate about gender equality in the UK is intensifying. Last week, the London School of Economics Commission on Gender Inequality and Power published a report on gender inequality in the UK: it found that women account for just 29% of MPs, 18% of high court judges and 5% of FTSE 100 chief executives. On 20 October, the Institute for Government hosted its latest Women Leaders event: a debate on the motion ‘This House believes that voluntary targets are not enough to fast forward gender equality. Quotas are required’. In favour were Silvana Koch-Mehrin, a former Member of the European Parliament; Uschi Schreiber, EY’s Global Markets Leader; and Dr Andre Spicer, Professor of Organisational Behaviour at Cass Business School. Speaking against were Jo Swinson, former business minister and Liberal Democrat MP; entrepreneur Frances Dickens; and Sue Owen, Permanent Secretary at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. At the start of the debate, 63% of the room voted in favour of the motion. Game changer                                                           Silvana, who now heads a global networking organisation for female parliamentarians, said that closing the gender gap is an economic and political issue, as well as a moral imperative. “Politics is not a meritocracy,” she said. “A politician’s success depends on who they know, and how effectively they navigate vested powers and networks… How do you play a game that is set by rules that seem to be made mainly by men?” Mentoring and special training for women help, she said, but are not changing the game. Uschi provided a perspective from the corporate world and drew on business terminology to describe gender inequality: “We need to intervene to respond to a market failure.” Central to Uschi’s argument was the point that quotas establish expectations. Voluntary targets might not survive the transition from one CEO to the next. Quotas, on the other hand, demand measurable results within defined time frames. “They set an expectation that's hard to reverse.” Uschi reasoned that thousands of years of human history tell us that dominant groups are interested mainly in maintaining the status quo, and that concerted action is required before they share power. Andre, who is writing a book about stupidity in organisations, cited evidence showing that boards with a female component have higher attendance and less conflict. He argued that there were only three real options for an equal distribution of power: if appointing men, only give power to those who have daughters; make all appointments random; or apply quotas. The first two were likely to be unacceptable, so that pointed to the third as the way forward.

Culture not compulsion Jo led off for the team arguing against the motion. The former government minister spoke passionately about the need for hard targets, but argued that quotas mask deeper problems and can distract from the need for wider organisational change. She said that voluntary action secures more genuine buy-in. While she doesn’t believe in quotas, she said that the threat of quotas can be a powerful instrument. Frances, who founded her own very successful media business career (and was fresh from recording The Apprentice: You’re Fired) argued against the motion on the basis of meritocracy and tokenism. Quotas don't advance gender equality because they mean that women are not appointed on merit, she said. As an example she cited the women, nicknamed “golden skirts”, who sit on multiple boards in Norway to make up quotas. Pressure from shareholders, not bureaucratic quotas, would bring about more effective change. She also said that companies with no women on their board should be discouraged from joining the FTSE. Sue argued that gender quotas don't tackle entrenched bias. While policy is better if the people making it are representative of the population, tokenism can set people up to fail, she warned. In the past, some women who were brought into leadership positions in Whitehall lacked support and faced a hostile environment. Government departments that do well recruit transparently and work hard to get a wide base of candidates from which to recruit, she concluded. The struggle continues So which side appealed most to the hearts and minds of the audience? Polled after the debate, the percentage of the audience agreeing with the motion rose to 71%. The pro-quotas side may have won this particular battle. But the war for equality, joined by the Suffragettes a century ago, is still far from won. Gemma Williams is Marketing Leader, Global Government and Public Sector, EY Global Limited.