Quotas only way to 'shatter the glass ceiling' for women

If any organisation, whether in the private or public sector, is to achieve its maximum potential, all appointments and promotions to any position (at any level) must only be determined on merit - i.e. they must be the best person to do the job in question - regardles of the gender, race or economic background of the individual. In the case of the open borders policy of the EU, I guess their (EU) country of origin has to be added to this list.
Any other policy is purely social engineering and will result in EU businesses falling further down the global ladder, and public sector quangos further failing to deliver a fully cost-effective, tax-payer funded service.

Having seen both sides of the workplace it is evident to me that those at or near the top have higher levels of assertiveness and plain aggression, and that is why men are statistically favoured. Running a successful enterprise requires both qualities in this far from perfect world; dog eat dog springs to mind. Basically you have to decide which comes first - ethics or reality, or a balance of both, not such an easy decision when survival is at stake. In a perfect world we could perhaps afford a socially engineered 50/50 mix.

From what I understand the language in the proposed legislation is not neutral in that it specifies women as the protected category. I may be wrong and if so, please correct me. If I'm not, is there a reason that this language isn't gender neutral?

Jean-Guy Giraud – You make excellent points.

Neville Paddock - Excellent post, covers it all really.

The EU is determined to have a one size fits all policy and unless the member states point out the pit falls we will end up with positive discrimination.

It is difficult to post covering all possible Senior Jobs but providing the definition of the 'best' person for the job is consistent regardless of gender then we don't have to try and turn it into some huge intellectual challenge. Of course qualifications, intelligence, education and experience must be used to get the 'best' person for the job. In my experience a bit of psychometric testing is also useful before you even get to the serious job interviews.

I have lost count of the number of people who have been interviewed who are very intelligent but without an ounce (gram) of common sense. To say nothing of the intelligent people who I have met who totally lack application and drive. Then there is the highly successful person whose 'legs' have gone and end up being 'a legend in their own lunchtime'. I have employed both men and women and each individual can have their own challenges. However, it will require a lot of good will on behalf of companies who are looking for Senior Management. Make no mistake though if the EU get their way then it could end up causing a lot of resentment.

George Mc

Mike Parr

'stupid people can be quite rich (as shown by the ministers in the current UK government.'

Really!?

So what we need is clever and skint with no experience of anything? Then you will be king of the pile

misogynistic? Oh dear, read my post. I have employed both men and women and mostly successfully but they all got the job because they were the best available.

Cheers

George Mc - I never said that we needed "clever & skint with no experience" I did observe that our Dawinian society makes sure it does not use the human resources it has to best advantage (you're not one of the rich but stupid people are you George?).

In response to Mrs Houle, where in the proposal does it suggest "forcing women"? I doubt there is a shortage of women capable of fullfilling the role of director in a company - the issue is one of opportunity - which the proposed legislation aims to address. With respect to shareholders, oh dear you do live in la la land - shareholders exercise almost no control over large companies - which is the target of the proposed legislation. I can recommende J K Galbraith and his "New Industrial Society" if you think shareholders do have control or witness recent events where shareholders tried to control executive pay

Selecting talented women for Non Executive Director positions is a phenomenal way to emphasise merit in the selection of Non Executive Directors.

Even in countries like the US, or sectors as tech, which have considered “merit” as a driving compass in selecting people, the percentage of women on boards has barely moved past the 15% mark. Focusing on selecting more women can be purely revolutionary, as it will increase choices based on leadership competencies.

Let me bring in the case of Italy. We have recently introduced a law, in essence requiring, since 12 August 2012, Italian listed or State-controlled companies to appoint a fifth (to become a third at the following mandate) of board members as part of the “under represented gender”. This law has been implemented earlier by a number of Italian corporates, during the Annual General Meeting season of 2012: exceptional women were selected. As shareholders were nudged by the law towards changing some board members, they realised they would be better off by selecting them on the basis of merit and competency;

Another great result was that overall corporate governance improved. As this law mandates for shareholders to change a number of board members, Italian companies have rightly taken it as a great opportunity to make better use of their Boards. Hence, some leading Italian global companies, such as Fiat Chrysler for example, implemented a smaller board, with a view to fostering its effectiveness.
■As a final remark, let me repeat one of my mantras: exceptional female talent is ever more crucial, in one of those defining moments, as difficult as they are, where proper and effective use of talent and leadership can, and will make a difference for the better. Breaking the impasse is possible, if we try to tweak some consequences of two unconscious biases through a little nudge.
More on this here: http://wp.me/p2mHJv-28