The Great Debate UK

The absence of women in senior positions – a ‘wicked’ problem

Savita Kumra is a senior lecturer at Brunel Business School. The opinions expressed are her own. Thomson Reuters will host a follow-the-sun live blog on March 8, 2011 to mark the 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day.

I’m not sure if it’s just me, but I get a feeling of déjà vu every time I see a headline decrying the lack of women on FTSE boards. Most recently, focus has been on the dearth of female non-executive directors on such boards and the solution of choice seems to be a number of organizations springing up to ‘mentor’ women so they are ready and able to take up these positions when the call comes.

Quite why this is seen as the way forward; when the approach has been tried for at least 10 years is not fully explained. What is clear is that the painfully slow progress of women onto FTSE boards is a fact and as Rittel and Webber would put it, a ‘wicked’ problem whose solution is as elusive as its continued presence as an issue is frustrating.

A recently commissioned study shows that of the 1,772 non-executive positions available on FTSE 350 boards; only 204 (11.5 percent) are held by women. Of those who make it, we know from work done at Cranfield School of Management that they are more likely than their male counterparts to have titles, they are more likely to have experience in a greater number of sectors and they are more likely to have greater experience serving on minor boards before breaking into the major leagues of the FTSE.

It is thus evident the bar is set extremely high for women and whilst there is evidence that men recruit in their own image; the women who gain these positions also come with fairly standard, albeit glowing, ‘vanilla’ CV’s.  Indeed as a friend, who is head of diversity in a City based firm astutely commented ‘…even the networks who look at getting women into Director positions are very elitist and will only look at women at VERY senior positions; they are not willing to mentor talented women a little further down the food chain’. So perhaps relying on mentoring, and making progress one woman at a time, may not be the whole answer.

As with many ‘wicked’ problems, perhaps a way to approach its solution is to reframe the problem itself. I attended a seminar a couple of years ago, and an Australian colleague struck me with her novel approach to framing the usual lament; rather than focusing on the lack of women in senior positions; she talked about the problems and challenges apparent in organizations by having a ‘surplus of men’.

The future is female? A re-traditionalisation of gender

Ruth Simpson is professor in management at Brunel Business School in West London and founding member of the Centre for Research in Emotion Work and Employment Studies. The opinions expressed are her own. Thomson Reuters is hosting a live blog for the 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day on March 8, 2011.

Are we in a post-feminist era or are conventional images of masculinity and femininity re-surfacing in society? I argue that rather than gender disadvantage being a thing of the past, as captured in understandings of post-feminism, gender is becoming more entrenched. In fact post-feminism itself – the belief that sexism is over – has allowed renewed disadvantage to emerge.

Post-feminism can be identified in a range of social trends. It can be seen in representations, common in the media, of the “Future is Female” celebrating the supposed assets that women bring into organizations. Women are thus seen to be the new “winners” – bringing crucial “emotional skills” to an economy characterised by attention to customer service and to “modern” organizations that are based on managing horizontal relationships rather than vertical ones and on a need for team-working rather than old-fashioned command and control.

Women are seen to have the right skills and mindset for this new working environment – to be adept at listening and communication, to be risk-aware rather than risk-taking and to be charismatic and visionary leaders. These celebratory visions are associated with Generation Y – the younger generation born after 1977 and who are just entering or who have recently enrolled in the labour market.

Members of this generation are confident, independent and seek challenging enjoyable work as well as time for play. They believe they can author their own lives through the choices they make, have a faith in meritocracy and, in terms of gender, believe that discrimination is a thing of the past.

The glass ceiling has been broken and feminism is an issue for their parents’ generation, not their own, with young women, particularly in the context of education, outperforming men. But a post-feminist faith in meritocracy and choice may mean we have become blind to issues of gender so that a new traditionalisation has crept in. A feminist consciousness has been replaced by a belief in merit, empowerment and choice. But notions of merit are not gender free.

Girl power? Reality, fantasy or chimera?

Susan Buckingham is a Professor in the Centre for Human Geography and Director of Social Work, at Brunel University in West London. The opinions expressed are her own. Thomson Reuters is hosting a live blog on March 8, 2011, to mark International Women’s Day.

In a recent public lecture on “Changing Britain” at Brunel University, I explored the proposition that society is becoming feminised. I examined current pay and employment data to argue that, while some statistics can be used to argue that some women are becoming more equal with men in some areas, the failure of women to significantly penetrate key decision making bodies, and continuing horizontal job segregation means that “girl power” is more a chimera than reality in the UK today.

Drawing from my own research in the environmental sector, I propose that this is not only problematic for women, as they continue to earn less than their male counterparts and face additional barriers to career progression and being appointed in key decision making roles, but that the failure of the country to capitalise on a significant share of its experience, expertise and intellect limits society as a whole.

A cursory glance at education figures for the UK may suggest that gender equality is being achieved. More women students are entering higher education, and now outnumber men (59 percent of all students in 2008 – 2009). They outperform their male colleagues, with 64 percent of women students achieving 1st and upper second degrees in 2008 – 2009, compared with 59 percent of men.

However, it is instructive to consider how women and men students are distributed. It is clear that women gravitate strongly to particular disciplines, and that these can be linked to lower pay.

For example, between 76 percent to 85 percent of social work, nursing, occupational therapy and physiotherapy students are women, where the average advertised pay for these jobs ranges between 26,000 – 29,900 pounds.

Shake up workplace gender roles to advance women

Caroline Gatrell is a Senior Lecturer at Lancaster University Management School. The opinions expressed are her own. Thomson Reuters will host a follow-the-sun live blog on March 8, 2011, the 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day.

It is around 35 years since equal opportunities legislation came into force in the UK. In theory, this should mean that employed women are treated fairly at work, and paid the same as men in equivalent jobs.

In particular, women should be protected from discrimination on grounds of their potential, or actual motherhood. This story has a ‘glass half full’ side. It is true there are now many more women in business, management, parliament and the professions than in the 1970s.

However, another side of this story shows a ‘glass half empty’. The number of women holding positions of power within UK society remains very limited. It is still, often, men who hold the senior and most highly paid posts.

Things are no better in well paid skills-based occupations such as plumbing and firefighting. In 2006 the Women’s Work Commission showed a high level of occupational segregation, with men in the best paid jobs and women clustered in lower paid roles such as care work.

This discrepancy in earnings seriously affects women’s lives in the long term. We already know that women are disadvantaged in terms of pensions. But there are other, hidden effects of this gender pay gap.

We need risk-ready leaders

-Geoff Trickey is managing director of The Psychological Consultancy. The opinions expressed are his own.-

France is being rocked by its biggest financial scandal as Societe Generale is standing against ‘rogue trader’ Jerome Kerviel who is accused of gambling away nearly five billion euros. The core tenet of the argument comes down to risk. That as an employee Jerome was “encouraged” by his bosses to take risks while his bosses accuses him of taking “inhuman” risks.

Organisations need to understand how people instinctively respond to risk and the extent to which, in any situation, an individual can be the most significant risk factor. In the aftermath of the banking crisis, and with news headlines of rogue traders, there is, of course, a desire to solve these problems although this is mostly evidenced by an unhelpfully emotive atmosphere of blame and recrimination.

Organisations are ambivalent about risk. For many it is a key ingredient for business success and is an encouraged behaviour whether in an entrepreneurial start-up or a large multi-national organisation. For others, risk is a health and safety obsession, identifying what is out there that can harm us.

Organisations strategise about operational risk, compliance and governance, yet there is little appetite for discussions about the individuals involved and their contribution to the risk equation. As in the case of Societe Generale, it is only when it is too late that the personality involved comes under the microscope.

These issues are about deeply rooted personality characteristics, not about attitudes. Attitudes are easily influenced by the current climate of opinion and a person’s attitude to risk is an unstable basis for any long-term decisions. We have seen this in the nation’s attitude to debt that has managed a complete u-turn since the start of the recession as both business and private debt is repaid at unprecedented rates.

Research tells us that personality based assessments offer the best guide to risk behaviour. Personality assessment has become an established part of the recruitment process but the focus has not been on risk profiling of prospective employees yet there are a number of underlying aspects of temperament that determine the way we each respond to risk.

Is a hybrid model an answer for British businesses?

-Dave Coplin is national technology officer at Microsoft. Any opinions expressed are his own.-

The British economy may technically be out of recession, but it is still not creating the jobs and growth needed to turn back the clock to the upbeat days of the past. And with a looming fiscal crisis, it’s not hard to see why some commentators are predicting the terminal decline of the British economy. I don’t think the situation for Britain is dire — yet. But if businesses want to regenerate economic engines in the future they do need to change.

Astute business leaders know that dramatic social, economic and political changes — in addition to changing workforce demographics, globalisation and rapid developments in social and business technologies — are now fusing together. Ultimately, they will affect every aspect of UK private enterprise – and competitiveness.

Having spoken to prominent industry figures and the Institute of Directors, I am more convinced than ever that the solution to this change is a move to a “hybrid” business model. That means UK businesses need to change their thinking, structures and operations and adopt a more flexible approach or lose out to more nimble competitors in the future.

A looser hybrid model has many benefits, although it isn’t without challenges. In the hybrid business, fixed office space is rejected in favour of giving staff access to shared space in bureaus. Such structural changes have huge benefits, including increased profitability (reduced rental overheads), greater responsiveness to shifting demand and more intense collaboration between workers – not to mention improved agility as businesses quickly spot and exploit market opportunities.

It’s not all sweetness and light though: less fixed office space can put off employees and create a sense of insecurity. But it’s become clear over the last few years that the notion of the office is changing and employees want a flexible approach to work. There is a noticeable move towards sharing in cities such as London, Manchester and Birmingham where office space — as well as coffee, light and power — are shared.

A hybrid approach to business is far more employee orientated. In my view, it recognises the blurring demarcation between work and home life. That involves recognition from businesses that as part of expecting staff to be on call 24/7, they must also be able to access modern communication tools — such as social networks and online shopping tools — in the office at all times.

A call for a cross-party consensus on pensions

-Damian Stancombe is head of corporate defined contribution at Punter Southall. The opinions expressed are his own.-

Pensions were a prominent feature of the chancellors’ debate recently, and are becoming a key battleground in the run-up to the election. Perhaps more interesting for us, however, has been the reaction of UK plc to the pensions issue and any government-led ‘solution’.

Punter Southall recently undertook its annual Corporate Defined Contribution Survey 2010, one of the largest and most wide-ranging undertaken in its field.  Responses were received from representatives of a diverse spread of over 330 companies, and considered all aspects of pensions, but focused on defined contribution in the UK and influencing issues: from the current and future impact of economic conditions to the far-reaching effects of planned pension reforms.

The respondents included some of the UK’s largest employers, including 24 FTSE 100 companies and the survey conveys an authoritative range of opinions reflecting the views of UK plc. It revealed a strong sense of dissatisfaction with politicians for their seeming inability to bring about positive changes with regard to pensions. The feeling was that any future political change would have little or no impact on pension legislation, for better or worse.  This is borne out by the fact that 86 percent of respondents believe there will be a change of government at the next election, while 57 percent believe this will have little impact.

With only 14 percent of respondents believing a change in government will have a positive impact on pensions, we believe that this is a strong steer from the business community for government to establish a cross-party consensus solution.  This is seen as essential to achieve stability for non-state pension provision and bring an end to constant damaging intervention arising from conflicting policies.  Indeed this cross-party consensus may be even more important if, as some commentators have claimed, we may be heading towards a hung parliament.

Many companies are pleading for government to stop passing the welfare buck to them (essentially taxing them to provide it by forcing companies to make contributions to pension plans) and to stop legislating them to the point of distraction.

With employer duties and National Employment Savings Trust due to arrive in the near future, we asked UK plc for their opinions on the proposed changes. The recently announced NEST charges have come in for some criticism in the press for being grossly unfair.  In reality, when compared to the pensions industry prior to 2001 and the introduction of Stakeholder Pensions or the cost of schemes in other countries such as the U.S., a comparative charge of 0.5 percent is actually very reasonable.

Managing staff shortages during the volcano disruption

-Melanie Franklin is CEO at Maven Training. The opinions expressed are her own.-

Businesses should have learned by now, from the unexpected eruptions of volcanic ash and the global havoc it has wreaked, that flexibility, creativity and the ability to adapt to an unpredictable environment is crucial to survival.

Having the skills to manage a crisis, such as what to do when 25 percent of the workforce may not turn up to work on Monday morning and how to manage the impact, is vital. Those that learned such project management skills will have been putting contingency plans in place as early as Thursday – when the mass flight cancellations started totting up into the thousands.

Below are top ten tips for dealing with such a crisis:

1)    Review existing contingency plans to see what transferable actions can help. No-one plans for these highly unusual circumstances, but most organisations have plans for fire, flood and terrorist disruption.

2)    Meet with the management team to organise resources internally and assess the situation. Identify what resources are missing and find out from remaining employees the impact delayed staff returns will have. Then, if possible, speak to those that are trapped abroad and allow them to contribute to help analyse the gaps.

3)    Reassure those that are directly affected. Staff maybe more concerned with the safety of their job than getting home. If staff are to be effective when they return to work, they must be reassured that their workload is being passed to others and they are not going to be disciplined. Having staff worry about this when they are already experiencing the stress of being trapped abroad will not increase their productivity on their return.

Peter Harwood: the man in the middle

Your business is Peter Harwood’s business — at least it becomes his business if you seek the help of employment relations service Acas to help mediate a collective conflict in your workplace.

As chief conciliator at the Advisory, Concilation and Arbitration Service, Harwood has mediated hundreds of employment tribunal cases over the past 20 years, including recent high-profile disputes between British Airways and Unite union; Royal Mail and the Communication Workers Union; Network Rail and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers; oil company Total and Unite.

Media coverage may give the impression that strike action increased in Britain during the recent economic downturn, but — in keeping with patterns during periods of recession — it has dropped, a new Acas policy discussion paper reports. The pattern of industrial action is similar to the one that emerged in the recession of the 1990s, it suggests.

“Stoppages fell to 121 in the year to June 2009 from 155 in the same period in the previous non-recessionary year,” writes Sarah Podro, the author of the study. “Working days lost fell dramatically from 933, 000 to 598,000.”

Acas, governed by an independent council funded by the Department for Business Innovation & Skills, saw a rise in demand for its collective conciliation services during the recent recession. However, as the UK economic outlook improves, the trend has been towards a lower number of conciliated disputes, compared to a rise in industrial work stoppages and in days lost due to industrial action.

Around 175,000 days were lost in October 2009 through disputes, the highest monthly figure since the summer of 2008, the report states.

“One notable impact of the recession has been the increase in concessionary bargaining, where unions have negotiated pay freezes, wage reduction or a shorter working week, limited overtime or reduced employer pension contributions to protect jobs,” Podro writes.

Mediation service for workplace disputes on the rise

Businesses and employees embroiled in conflict are tapping into a free conciliation service to avoid expensive employment tribunal claims at a rate that has doubled since September 2009, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service reports.

Acas, governed by an independent council funded by the Department for Business Innovation & Skills, fields about 87,000 tribunal cases a year to sort out disputes between employers and employees.

Complainants can call a telephone helpline as the first step, either before or after dismissal, rather than embarking on a costly and time-consuming formal legal tribunal procedure.

“The idea is to try and take out the heat and complications you have in employment relations and to stop you spending an awful lot of money and time by going to a tribunal,” Acas Chair Ed Sweeney told Reuters.

Pre-claim conciliation resolutions may include awarding a sum of money, an apology and a work reference, while the tribunal process offers reinstatement in the workplace or financial compensation without a reference, regardless of the outcome of the ruling.

The tribunal, which considers the reason for dismissal and whether proper workplace procedures are followed, can also require one side to pay the costs of the other.

At the end of February 2010, 10 months after Acas first launched the process, more than 8,000 pre-claim conciliation referrals were made, and 5,000 tribunal cases avoided, according to Acas.  The helpline receives more than a million calls a year.