Male and Female in Top Jobs? 50% or Merit?

Forums › Off topic › Male and Female in Top Jobs? 50% or Merit?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#2051648 8-Jul-2018 19:29

tdgeek:

I didnt put this in Politics so it gets wider coverage.

To me its merit, end of story, close the thread please! I dont even know why this is an issue.

Currently One News says its 45% someone said it needs to be 50%, I just caught the end off the clip.

Why does it need to be 50%? I think 45% is great. Most males are eligible. Many females have children, so the 50% of females gets reduced, so by my off the cuff calculations, the gals are doing really well.

I suspect that if it was on merit, woman would hold most of the top jobs.

Blokes should be pushing for the 50%.......Keep their hand in the game.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#2051815 9-Jul-2018 09:53

UHD:

If you're talking about being part of an external (as opposed to internal and dealing with the day to day) board member then perhaps not. However, you are quite unlikely to attract employment as an external director of any major company without first being a part of senior management (and therefore easily working 60+ hours a week) or already holding a number of external board positions.

With the exception of a managing, or executive director (rare positions), directors shouldn't be involving themselves in the operational aspects of company. "Nose in, fingers out" is the general principle.

While a publicly listed company is unlikely not select a director with no senior management experience, plenty of non for profit organisations will. Many of these boards will have people who are professional directors and if you make good impression, opportunities will open up.

There are also non-directorial governance positions where experience can be gained - school boards, health boards, community boards. As an example, saw Zealandia in Welly were recently advertising for a female director.

Anyone serious about being a professional director should (after some initial experience) do an Institute of Directors course. IoD also have programmes to place young (<40) and female directors in associate director positions.

Incidentally, I'm not sure if a director is actually an employee.

Mike

vulcannz

436 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 136
Inactive user

#2051856 9-Jul-2018 11:09

MingBNZ:
vulcannz:

dejadeadnz: This thread is drawing out the usual types and the gorgeously Victorian attitudes, along with the simplistic answers for everything.

Well it is simplistic statements that are made. Simply stating that women are underrepresented because "men" is about is simplistic as it gets.

For publicly listed company boards we'd need to see the reasons why. Equal opportunity has been part of the law for a long time. There is no data around how many women apply for these roles and whether their skill set is appropriate/relevant to the role.

It is also incredibly sexist, as it assumes men do not have the appropriate skills and are getting the jobs simply because they are men. Yet AFAIK in the last 50 years there have been zero employment targets in the government or private sector to target a 50% male employment level, despite some sectors such as education and healthcare being dominated by women.

Perhaps part of the reason that women are under represented in management and governance positions is because some men assume that women who are parents do not have the capacity to take on high level roles. The OP said women who are parents are ineligible to be directors, you said that women who are parents do not have time to work 60 hours a week. It may not be the only reason but I do not doubt it is a factor.

Well first of all I never said that women who are parents do not have time to work 60 hours a week.

Perhaps this... perhaps that... there are a lot of assumptions being made to leap to a conclusion. That really shows that you have already made up your mind and are looking for things help you get to your conclusion. The fact you have zero data to back your assumptions.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2051865 9-Jul-2018 11:21

MingBNZ:

The OP said women who are parents are ineligible to be directors

I never said that.

MileHighKiwi

782 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 581

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2051938 9-Jul-2018 12:58

I work for a large financial services organization and recently our new female CEO made some big claims about having 50/50 Male/female within a couple of years.

She restructured the exec team and hired 5 men, she then apologised for not hiring woman but said "I couldn't find any woman with the skills and experience needed for large scale organisational change".

She put a target on her back on day 1 and is now having to justify her senior appointments. Very strange. Virtue signaling for sure.

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#2052042 9-Jul-2018 14:36

In this field does anyone actually bother to research if males and females have the same appetite for senior roles?

I've heard quite few female CEO's and senior managers privately express frustration at being unable to get female managers to apply for promotions and being unable to attract qualified external female candidates.

In the sector I work with: Females are common in tier three positions, rare in tier two positions, very rarely in CEO roles.

Mike

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2052219 9-Jul-2018 19:56

I don't want to be specific enough to Doxx myself or my SO.

She's an executive director and on other boards. She quit from one of the boards, she was the only woman, replaced by another woman who lasted one meeting and also quit - so she's been dragged back there and "loving it". Paternalism, intellectual p!ssing contests - hey it's all great. They expected her to record the minutes, in 2018, FFS, these morons are supposed to be leaders.

I'd suggest that she could join in here. Nope - she'd be laughing her guts out about a group of men trying to "reasonably" debate things of which most know nothing at all.

I agree with Mike above - and there's probably a reason why many women don't apply for senior roles. The environment is often toxic. Why the hell would you waste your life?

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#2052420 10-Jul-2018 09:30

Fred99:

I agree with Mike above - and there's probably a reason why many women don't apply for senior roles. The environment is often toxic. Why the hell would you waste your life?

My comment was actually a little deeper than that - I was postulating the inherent motivation of females to pursue senior positions may be less than that of males - regardless of the environments around those positions.

There is no doubt that it's tough at the top. Senior positions can be both lonely and stressful ans that dissuades a lot of people. I've been fortunate enough to never encounter a toxic board or senior leadership team. I have come across a few toxic individuals - both male and female.

I've observed a lot of female colleagues get to a certain point then decide they are quite content and don't want the stress of a more senior role. The women I'm thinking of have all rocketed up to mid-management positions, been entirely capable of going further and have been encouraged to seek promotion.

My SO is one such woman. A close friend of mine has just turned down a promotion offer in a very female-centric organisation, resigned and set up her own consultancy. Actually about half a dozen female friends have gone solo that - all once they hit their mid-40s.

Yes, I realise this is all anecdotal ... but the pattern intrigues me.

Mike

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2052466 10-Jul-2018 10:09

MikeAqua:

Fred99:

I agree with Mike above - and there's probably a reason why many women don't apply for senior roles. The environment is often toxic. Why the hell would you waste your life?

My comment was actually a little deeper than that - I was postulating the inherent motivation of females to pursue senior positions may be less than that of males - regardless of the environments around those positions.

There is no doubt that it's tough at the top. Senior positions can be both lonely and stressful ans that dissuades a lot of people. I've been fortunate enough to never encounter a toxic board or senior leadership team. I have come across a few toxic individuals - both male and female.

I've observed a lot of female colleagues get to a certain point then decide they are quite content and don't want the stress of a more senior role. The women I'm thinking of have all rocketed up to mid-management positions, been entirely capable of going further and have been encouraged to seek promotion.

My SO is one such woman. A close friend of mine has just turned down a promotion offer in a very female-centric organisation, resigned and set up her own consultancy. Actually about half a dozen female friends have gone solo that - all once they hit their mid-40s.

Yes, I realise this is all anecdotal ... but the pattern intrigues me.

My wife has done a lot of high level contracting in government departments over the past 10 years. She would be the first to tell you how the most toxic environments she has worked in at SLT level are female dominated. She is dead set against any form of quota system or preferential treatment.

sxz

761 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 194

#2052467 10-Jul-2018 10:09

I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if this has been covered elsewhere.

My view is that it's not (or should not be) an issue of putting a quota and saying "let's employ 50/50". Instead, we should be identifying what it is about our society that makes it harder for women (if it does) to progress their careers, such that 50/50 happens organically, by just choosing the best candidate. For me, I see kids as the main issue.

As a young father, I've seen my career continue to thrive, while my wife took 7+ months off to give birth, worked part time for another 12+ months, and has only recently returned to work full time. She works very hard, and has a better qualification than I do, but for now at least, I earn more so it makes more sense I work full time when I can. We'd love to have another kid soon, but it's going to be a massive ask for her career to take another big hit/delay (especially if we eventually want three kids).

I think to better support women, we should be better supporting both young parents and making maternity/paternity leave more accessible, for a longer period of time. For example: we had no support whatsoever when my wife gave birth, because my wife was a full time student she did not qualify for maternity leave (to qualify, the woman must be in paid work). Because she didn't have maternity leave, I wasn't entitled to paid paternity leave (I was allowed 2 weeks unpaid, which again is a big ask for the sole breadwinner facing the costs of new parenthood).

Maternity/paternity leave should be universal. End of story. It's a tough time for everyone, help them out. We need a much bigger push for men to be able to easily take this leave.

Daycare should be paid much earlier. Expecting a mum (or dad) to stay at home until a kid is 3, means many people (usually mums) might have 5 or more years out of the work force. No wonder there are more men in the top spots - on average they will have more experience in their roles if the women are expected to be at home with the kids. Our kid's daycare is brilliant, and I can't recommend them enough. The things they teach him, the relationships he builds, he has loved every day of it. I see no reason why we can't support young parents by providing free child care to all parents from the age of 1, if that is what the parents chose to do. This would support any women to get back into the workforce earlier and have a shorter gap in their career, if that is what they choose to do.

My wife and I are lucky enough that we can afford to put our boy into daycare, at a cost of nearly $12,000 per year. God knows what we would (or will) do if we had two kids under the age of three.

TL/DR - support parents with young kids better, to allow working woman to better continue their careers. 50/50 should then happen organically.

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#2052482 10-Jul-2018 10:25

sxz:

I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if this has been covered elsewhere.

My view is that it's not (or should not be) an issue of putting a quota and saying "let's employ 50/50". Instead, we should be identifying what it is about our society that makes it harder for women (if it does) to progress their careers, such that 50/50 happens organically, by just choosing the best candidate. For me, I see kids as the main issue.

I think there is a question before that which is hard to have an honest and informed discussion of but would benefit from research.: Is it society/business or is it innate differences between men and women?

If we change society to suit women, it may suit men less. You can see evidence of such overbalancing in the education sector. For example look at StatsNZ data on the numbers of males/females graduating with bachelor level degrees.

I don't subscribe to the idea that things should be changed to suit women and if they don't suit men - tough luck. What we want is fairness and balance.

Harvard Business School would agree with you about the impact of parenthood on women's careers. They conducted a study on career progression of business school graduates and concluded parenthood career-limited women more than men. It's been a while since I read the report and I don't have ref sorry.

The NZ Min. for Women in NZ released a report quite recently that concluded similar

Something I haven't seen researched is the impact of parenthood on motivation of men and women. For me becoming father decreased my appetite for physical risks, but it increased my desire to succeed at work, get promoted and earn more. I wonder what changes women experience when they become mothers?

Mike

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5