Encouraging businesses to focus upon retaining and developing female talent may sound controversial, but is there a strong argument for this approach? Sarah Fletcher asked members of HR Zone whether women are the future for talent management.
Debates on workplace sexism usually consider the reduced career opportunities and discrimination faced by female employees in a marketplace dominated by male directors. A recent report from legal services firm Peninsula claimed three quarters of women had been bullied at work because of their gender. However, as surveys rarely, if ever, question whether males feel victimised in the same situation, commentators may argue that this suggests women are treated unfairly in the office purely because of their gender. How accurate is this?
David Cameron’s pledge in December 2005 to headhunt and mentor female MPs in an attempt to bring more women into the party is just one example what some critics argue is positive discrimination that justifies discrimination because the targeted group are classed as the politically disenfranchised underdogs.
The figures aren’t encouraging: thirty years after the introduction of the Sex Discrimination Act the Equal Opportunities Commission reports that women make up only 11 per cent of directors at FTSE 100 companies, only a fifth of MPs and 16 per cent of local authority council leaders. But do these statistics reveal discrimination at the heart of UK organisations or are there just not enough women suitable for the job?
Juliet LeFevre, consultant
Women are increasingly better skilled and better educated than their male peers, accounting for more than half of university graduates and achieving higher standards in their first degrees than men. So why are there so few females at director level?
When this question was posed on HR Zone’s Any Answers forum, it sparked strong disapproval. Consultant Juliet LeFevre said: “As HR practitioners we are supposedly more enlightened. The mere debate is a portent of backward steps. What next: ‘what are the advantages of employing non-disabled staff over disabled staff’?” Managing consultant Peter Duckitt added: “Discrimination – positive or otherwise – is not allowed. Any debate it provokes is likely to be somewhat sexist and I’m surprised the question has been asked.” However, sex discrimination continues to command press coverage and is still a major issue for organisations.
Do employers have a case?
Director of consultancy organisation In My Prime Richard Ciechan says positive discrimination is a viable option if the business goals are clearly set out: “Positive discrimination never works well for any group unless there is a clear idea of why it is needed and what the beneficial outcomes will be. So an organisation should only deliberately recruit more women if there is a business case for introducing more of the particular skills that women might bring, [for example] communication skills, coaching skills, team-building skills, multi-tasking abilities.
“These are by no means unique to women but generally tend to be found more often in women. [There is also a case for positive discrimination if] clients or customers perceive that you ought to have more women – though in order for this to be valid, you need again to be clear about why they feel this and what benefit they will receive, or feel they would receive if this were the case.”
Richard Ciechan, director, In My Prime Ltd
Steve Watson, director of consultancy firm RewardWorks, argues that making employment decisions based upon the individual’s gender is reasonable, “sad but true in actual practice”. “Certain roles are suited to one gender over the other – for example, work that is very physical or [working in] a girls’ school where it is probably not worth the hassle to be a male teacher.”
Kitty Falls of Eric Robinson Solicitors agrees that businesses must reassess their working practices to avoid the need for positive discrimination: “Blanket positive discrimination and quotas are not going to solve anything, but [a] reassessment of workplace culture… would often not go amiss. I’m not sure I am comfortable with the idea that women bring special clichéd skills to the workplace that men don’t have, but a lot of businesses do promote a working culture that equates the value of an employee with long hours and total dedication to the office.”
What women want?
Jo Guy, HR manager of Racal Antennas Ltd, suggests that some women just aren’t prepared to sacrifice their desire to care for their children in the name of a career: “If a woman wants to be a high flyer or an MP, or even just do a full time job, she has the choice to do that, but the reality is that the majority of women who have children do not want to do those high flying jobs, and if they do want to, they organise their lives so that they can. The reality of that means that there are always going to be more men doing the top jobs than women.
“Sometimes a woman has to take the decision that they cannot have their cake and eat it, and if they do want to have their cake and eat it they have to take the responsibility of organising their life accordingly. I don’t think it should be up to the government or employers to do that for them.
“It might be extremely politically incorrect, but I am sure I am expressing the view of quite a few HR people when I say that it is sometimes extremely difficult in some industries (especially small companies which make up the majority of companies in the UK) to cope when women take a year’s maternity leave, and then assume that they can return to their previous job on a part time basis, and the more responsible job they hold the more difficult it is to accommodate that wish.
“There are always going to be exceptions to any rule and there are a lot of men who take on the main child care role, and of course there are a lot of women who have to work full time for financial reasons, just to keep the family afloat, but I wonder if people just expect too much to be done for them instead of taking responsibility for their own lives.
Jo Guy, HR manager, Racal Antennas Ltd
“In summary I personally think that women who want to succeed in whatever they choose to do in the world of work will ensure that they do, and some will combine that with having children, but the majority who choose to be the main child carer, are content with the life they have chosen and it will probably always be so.”
Skills
Cameron suggested that the selection process should encompass tests to determine whether potential MPs had strong listening, empathetic and communicative skills as well as impressive oratory abilities. Such qualities, he argued, are more common in women – do HR Zone members agree?
“Absolutely not! Male and female can do the same roles to the same degree. Difference depends on capability, nothing else,” argues Karen Bailey, learning and development manager at Coors Brewery. This view is challenged by Ciechan, who says there are real differences between the genders that the employer ignores at their peril: “Many difficulties have been caused for both men and women over the past decades by trying to blur the edges between the sexes and pretend that we are all the same. Women have unique strengths, as do men. There is plenty of research and practical evidence for what these actual traits and strengths are and more attention should be paid to them.”
Positive action or positive discrimination?
Is it acceptable to select and mentor female employees if it’s classed as positive action rather than positive discrimination? “Discrimination all the way, I’m afraid. As a woman I want to know I have earned my position in the same way as the men. I would not work in an organisation that felt it needed to give a leg up to females after three decades of legislation – hardly forward thinking!” says Bailey.
Consultant Peter Stanway argues that a ‘female friendly’ policy may just be equal opportunities under a different guise: “Positive action is legal and sometimes justifiable. Positive discrimination is illegal (and immoral). Diversity management means focussing on groups or individuals to give them encouragement. All too often it is just equal opportunities with a new title. I have no problem with the diversity approach, providing it is legal and justifiable. Otherwise it is just words gathering dust on a shelf.”
Peter Stanway, consultant
The distinction between positive action and positive discrimination is fine but crucial: removing the barriers faced by a less privileged social group and aiming to put them on an equal footing with their peers is positive action; selecting or rejecting an applicant purely on the basis of their gender or race is discriminatory.
Company director Robert Carlin argues that despite Cameron’s claims that “positive action is fine, positive discrimination isn’t”, this approach to talent management steps over the line of acceptability. “I think it is clear to see that even Government bodies agree with positive discrimination,” he comments.
“I don’t agree with Cameron’s ‘positive discrimination’ because of the tokenism aspect. Women do not need condescending approaches, they are good enough on their own merits… The real issue is with the attitudes of men (not just the white middle aged currently in power, watch the realities in China and India for a few of the future). In the case of MPs, it seems to me that the bigger problem is one of practical work issues that prevail at Westminster… He should not lose sight of meritocracy as the number one principle,” comments Watson.
The way forward
“The way forward for every business has increasingly got to be to consider their workforce as an evolutionary body that will have different needs at different stages in life – and this applies equally to men and women,” argues Ciechan. “As the span of working life increases, skilled labour becomes increasingly scarce and society continues to evolve in terms of responsibilities outside the workplace (for example women having children later, male househusbands, elderly dependents, etc) – employers will need increasingly to look at adopting flexible working options that employees can dip into and out of as they want and need to over the length of their working lives.
“By definition, these practices will need to be accessible to all ages, genders, ethnic and other groups. Thus, there is no positive discrimination – simply positive action by enlightened employers realising that in the 21st century, it is no longer practical to hope to attract and retain the best talent through maintaining 19th century working practices,” he concludes.
* * *
7 Responses
affirmative action for a minority male HR professional
As a member of the minority sex in the HR profession I’m all for this positive action if it encourages employers to discriminate in favour of men in HR!
Joking aside – who decides to label one group as a minority? I think that slightly over 50% of babies born are female and the average female outlives the average male … yes … making women the MAJORITY.
I have faith that the majority of people make hiring decisions on ability and character rather than gender, sexual orientation, religion etc. I hope that in the near future this whole topic will be an anachronism.
Other ways of looking at the situation
Interesting article. I am Scottish but gained my HR education and experience in Canada. I was surprised to find that the views in this article are completely foreign to me. There are other ways to view positive discrimination.
In Canada reverse discrimination is legal. The federal government recognises that there are groups who have been, historically, marginalised (women, people with disabilities, visbile minorities and aboriginals etc.) and to redress the balance (and perhaps speed up the process of finding balance) it is legal to discriminate in favour of members of these groups. It is slightly different to Affirmative Action in the U.S. In Canada there aren’t quotas but there are targets for federally regulated organizations (banks, telcos etc.) and firms working closely with the government. These firms have to submit a report every year to the government detailing the levels of diversity within the company and the efforts they have made to maintain or increase diversity within the company. The targets are based on data gathered in communities on the availability of labour in the area. So, for example, data may communicate that 30% of people in Toronto who are qualified to be IT Managers are females, so federally regulated companies should aim to have 30% female IT managers. Generally that is done through attrition and recruitment not by firing the ‘extra’ males and replacing them with females. Many organisations in Canada recognize the value of diversity, in and of itself. Having a diverse workforce benefits business as your company is more likely to reflect society and so can cater better to diverse customers.
It is scary to hear so many people say that women are, rightfully, paying the price for having a family. I think you need to wake up to the reality that:
1. The birthrate in the UK (and many other places) is in decline to the point of threatening the maintenace and growth of the economy in terms of labour shortages etc.
2. Women are putting off having children or not having them at all because current thinking tells them they can’t have a successful career and a family (and the way things are, they aren’t wrong) so they have to make a choice — look at the birthrates and guess what they are choosing.
3. It would be possible for women to have children and a ‘high-flying’ career if workplaces became more family friendly in terms of childcare assistance and flexible work. Those benefits would be welcomed by both men and women.
Myopia is causing this imbalance. Understand that if you want to have employees in 20, 30, 40 years time, someone has to have kids. There are many women out there who don’t want to have kids at all and never will but there are plenty more who would have children given the knowledge that they will be able to balance their life and not be discriminated against. If you force women to choose between children and a career you are going to have a big problem.
Gender Balance issues
I am using this item to enlist some assistance from viewers/readers, as it seems this topic will be viewed by many.
We are currently in New Zealand in the throes of a debate on work/life balance. One of the more leftish minor political parties is promoting legislation aimed at allowing employees to request employers allow them more flexible work hours. The issue is being pursued with vigour by the unions, who as part of their argument in support are claiming similar legislation in the UK is 80% successful………..in other words, 80% of those who make the reequest manage to get the changes they wanted.
I would greatly appreciate some feedback from viewers on the following:
1. Is your legislation as much a success as claimed?…..or not. I would also appreciate some comment as to why it is successful, or not; and
2. Would anyone happen to have your legislation available to email me……..or do you have a government website from where I could download.
I read with some interest the recent case of the policewoman who has won a case supporting her contention that working night shift is no more or less hazardous than day shift, as part of her wanting to work certain hours only. I imagine her case was taken under the provisions of your legislation. As an Employers’ advocate, the problem I see is that Employers go to the trouble of spelling out very clearly what working requirements go with certain jobs, especially being able to work shifts or weekends or whatever, and then later to find Employees may be able to circumvent those requirements.
Any commentary would be most helpful. Cheers. Don Rhodes.
Positive discrimination is just a way of justifying discriminati
There is no such thing as positive discrimination – to favour one group is to discriminate against another.
Ask those who argue for “positive discrimination” how they can achieve their end without discriminating against other groups and there can be no answer because to favour one group you have to deny the same opportunities to others.
Even worse, those who benefited from the culture of discrimination in the past won’t be the ones who pay the price – it will be those starting off today or working their way up who will become the victims of an even more pernicious discrimination, one based in law.
Why should my son be denied the opportunities offered to my daughter? The law will protect her if she suffers gender discrimination so how can it be right for her brother to be denied the same protection simply because women suffered discrimination in the past? If we deny some people the same opportunities as others we will end up with an underclass of second class citizens who it is legal to discriminate against.
That only 11% of Directors are women is regretably understandable. Most Directors are still drawn from the older age groups and it takes a lifetime for change to work through the system. 30 years ago we had a predominantly male management structure, women who have enjoyed increasingly equal opportunities will rise to the top but a new female graduate 30 years ago would only be 50 / 51 today and in most firms that is still young to be a Director.
The number of women doctors / lawyers / accountants / managers etc paints a better picture of the progress that has been made towards gender equality. We aren’t there yet but to penalise young men who have already suffered from the feminisation of education – next to no male primary teachers, a majority of female secondary school teachers, teaching and examination methods designed to suit girls – will add to the growing underclass of disenchanted young men that the current education system has created.
Why is the focus always on the discrimination suffered by women? In the public sector men are fast becoming an endangered species. In Local Government, the Civil Service and the NHS (probably the three largest employers in the UK) men are significantly under represented. In most parts 3 out of 4 employees are women so why are the pay gap and the number of female managers / directors the only equality issues on the agenda?
Will “positive discrimination” include a 50 / 50 gender quota in the public sector? If so it would help reduce the high level of male unemployment in this country and enhance the gender equality in the predominantly male unemployment statistics. Is this what the proponents of “positive action” want?
Positive action creates winners and losers not equality – let’s not go there!
Dated
I agree with the sentiments of Jim and Dennis,
>>>However, sex discrimination continues to command press coverage and is still a major issue for organisations.>>>
Yes but its all a question of degree isnt it? The odd case here and there will always crop up, we dont live in a perfect society and as for it being a MAJOR issue, I dont think it is. Organisations obey the law, thats it, hence we have very few cases. Things have moved on from the 70’s. We dont live in a “Life on Mars” society.
This is all stuff and nonsense, the world has passed by. Appropos reactions – hanging and pornography command equally explosive reactions but that doesnt mean we should spend all our time debating them or that they have more than a passing relevance or contemporaneity.
Its a contentious but dated subject and speaking as a female we are not all interested.
The law is there to protect BOTH sexes and societies soon lose interest. Sure the article provokes debate, but we had it years ago and a debate without vision or insight is simply hot air – why is there no quote from the Equal Opportunities Commission?
And the point of the article is?
In this article is states:
“Women are increasingly better skilled and better educated than their male peers, accounting for more than half of university graduates and achieving higher standards in their first degrees than men. So why are there so few females at director level?
“When this question was posed on HR Zone’s Any Answers forum, it sparked strong disapproval… “
Not quite right. The original question was whether positive DISCRIMINATION was justified, and yet the accompanying text largely concerned positive action (as does this latest article). This seemed to suggest that the authoer didn’t understand the difference.
On reading their responses, contributors felt, rightly so, that to talk about discrimination as a solution is a backward step (along with it being patronising and naive).
I’m not sure what the purpose of this latest article is; it points out a problem we are all aware of, skirts an issue that’s illegal and immoral, and arrives at a conclusion (such as it is) that the answer lies in positive action.
Is it to keep a vaguely controversial topic active?
Same old stereotypes
Isn’t it about time we got away from the cliches and typecasting offered up within this article?
Discrimination is illegal. Dressing it up as “Action” is pernicious. We are not going to make progress in business by emphasising difference between the sexes or trotting out headline statistics about how many FTSE 100 companies have female directors.
Enterprises, commercial or otherwise, exist to be successful and will discover by trial & error, learning or skills transfer the best way of securing and retaining talent.
Those who want to change the social landscape, (or create headline-grabbing assertions) for reasons best known only to themselves, should stop making business pay for it.