Why having quotas may hurt women in the corporate boardroom

[CherryPanda]

Women deserve more seats in the highest corporate echelons. But a mandate is the wrong way to get there.

Germany seems to disagree. After months of debate, the German cabinet last week imposed a quota for women on big companies’ boards. The policy was a response to the fact that women are currently underrepresented in leadership positions: They comprise 46 percent of the labor force but hold just 15 percent of supervisory-board seats at Germany’s 200 biggest companies.

Germany is not the first to implement such a policy; Norway instituted corporate board quotas several years ago. France, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands followed suit. There is periodic agitation forimporting such policies to the United States , too.

At first blush, these types of quotas seem like they should be good for women, good for corporate governance and good for entire countries that are now underutilizing the human capital of the Second Sex.

Multiple studies, after all, have found that corporations with more womenon their boards tend to do better. Exactly why is unclear; maybe greater diversity produces more robust debate, leading to better decision-making. Or maybe the fact that having more women on a corporate board reflects other ways that a company is more forward-looking.

So far, though, research suggests that forcing companies to appoint women onto their boards has been somewhere between unhelpful and damaging, both to women aspiring to leadership roles and for the companies themselves.

One of the objectives behind such quotas is to improve the career and pay prospects of women further down the line, but a recent study of Norway’s system finds no evidence of a trickle-down effect for other high-achieving women or on the marital, fertility and career plans of other women. Quotas may, in fact, hurt women’s opportunities if they lead to women being perceived as unqualified, unwanted diversity hires.

In Norway, dozens of companies chose to delist from the stock exchange, apparently to avoid being subject to the quota. And among those companies that opted to stay public, quotas were associated with worse corporate performance. They “led to younger and less experienced boards, increases in leverage and acquisitions, and deterioration in operating performance,” one study found.

Why having quotas may hurt women in the corporate boardroom - The Washington Post

An interesting opinion on the issue, from my point of view. I mean, I have always considered this idea of quotas as something not healthy and even damaging. Too often in the race for equality our law makers forget about common sense.

As one can see from the article, European law makers have this problem too.

So, do you think that small number of women in the highest corporate echelons is because of the discriminations, or women are just less ambitious, or there are other obstacles?

 

[Dekster]

Women are less cutthroat than men and business favors cutthroats.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

no doubt some it is because of discrimination , but most of it is probably due to the fact that many otherwise qualified women are choosing to stay home with their children instead.

MOST people who are smart enough, and ambitious enough to be named to a board of directors or CEO position marry people who are their equals. So usually these women have husbands who earn enough money that they don't have to work.

And once again quotas are unconstitutional

 

[CherryPanda]

no doubt some it is because of discrimination , but most of it is probably due to the fact that many otherwise qualified women are choosing to stay home with their children instead.

MOST people who are smart enough, and ambitious enough to be named to a board of directors or CEO position marry people who are their equals. So usually these women have husbands who earn enough money that they don't have to work.

And once again quotas are unconstitutional

Yeah, I also think that quotas are unconstitutional. Moreover, not rational and simply harmful.
But there is one thing I can't completely agree. Do you think that women CHOOSE to stay with their children at home or not to work for their husbands earn enough? Is it really choice in most cases? Or is it just no choice? I mean, who would stay with kids instead if a woman doesn't want to do that? Or why is it necessary to quit job if you don't have to earn? Is it really an opportunity not to work?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

no doubt some it is because of discrimination , but most of it is probably due to the fact that many otherwise qualified women are choosing to stay home with their children instead.

MOST people who are smart enough, and ambitious enough to be named to a board of directors or CEO position marry people who are their equals. So usually these women have husbands who earn enough money that they don't have to work.

And once again quotas are unconstitutional

Yeah, I also think that quotas are unconstitutional. Moreover, not rational and simply harmful.
But there is one thing I can't completely agree. Do you think that women CHOOSE to stay with their children at home or not to work for their husbands earn enough? Is it really choice in most cases? Or is it just no choice? I mean, who would stay with kids instead if a woman doesn't want to do that? Or why is it necessary to quit job if you don't have to earn? Is it really an opportunity not to work?

Yes I think women who are qualified to be CEOs but are instead staying at home taking care of their children are doing so by choice for the most part.

Take my wife, for example; smart, educated, dedicated, hard working. Has a Master's Degree, as well as a teaching certificate, and has been a stay at home mom our entire marriage. Of course we discussed it together, but ultimately SHE chose that.

I'm sure she's not alone.