I was very lucky last week to be invited  to speak at the  JUMP Forum in Brussels. 

I have always been an advocate of healthy, sometimes angry, debate that includes men ...on the basis that you cant get beyond something unless you are brave enough to face it.

Below is a debate that took place on social media following our posts and pictures from JUMP. Most of the people involved  are the same people that we work with. There is just one difference ...social media gives us freedom to say whatever we want to say!

The thread isn't too long. Stay with it as I think it beautifully portrays the current situation in terms of the complete range of perception and opinion from men on the issue of quotas for women on boards. It gets heated at times and that, I say, is a healthy thing!

The title of the thread was 'Should we have quota's across Europe for women on boards?'

Daniel: Could we have quotas for other things too?  Like coal mining, or being a footballer in the premiership - each team would need their 'token' female - and perhaps we should extend this to race, religion, height, weight and so on? At least that would be a bit more 'equal'. What was your answer Tracey just out of interest ?

Tracey: My answer is that women aren't a minority group as in the ones you just mentioned they constitute over 50% of the human race and yet still only appx 11% of board directors. None of us like quotas but we like what they do ...the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. 

Daniel:  I think the tables will turn eventually anyway to be honest - and its been an 'old boys club' for quite some time - with each generation it gets better - there has certainly been an increase in 'women only' networking events (I'm not sure how that stands legally by the way - does that mean ... because I'm a man I can't go?). Sexism (and racism for example, as well as ageism, fattism, slimmism and any other ism you care to mention) pervades every aspect of society from work. I do agree 100% that women are not a minority group, but (and I don't know the figures here), there does seem much less females at networking events than men. I also think the type of female entrepreneurs is vastly different to men - a lot of nail technicians, hairdressers and that sort of thing (although you could argue the same for men with painting and decorating I guess). I think whats needed is more resources to small businesses, access to training, access to coaching and training and the like and make it accessible (financially) for those just starting out and for those wanting to grow the business and make a difference in not just their own family, but in their local area too.

Daniel: Then I'd like world peace and a every Friday should be 'hug a stranger day' and we all be nice to each other

Rich: The stats you told me from Scandinavia made it pretty moronic not to have gender balance on your board from an economic perspective.

Paul: No one wants to be a "token" appointment to tick regulatory or compliance boxes - people generally want to be appointed to a role based on merit / best for job. But biggest block to any appointment is "has to be a mini-me" attitudes, hence I agree with the "insanity" comment! Short-medium term = quotas to push initial change and shift in attitudes. However, if quotas are needed long term, then you got to question the quality of appointments via the quota system if sustained attitudinal change is not achieved. A good option is start quotas with non-exec appointments and ensure Rem-Com's have 50% female membership. My thoughts anyway.

Tracey: Great comments Paul trouble is 'merit' isn't present in the current system unless women want to go to work as a bloke in a skirt ...generally if she tries 'pink' at work she wont be recognised as 'assertive' and so wont be promoted because she doesn't easily embody the male model ...price too high so she leaves or gets depressed. Simplistic and a generalisation but the exception doesn't prove the rule either

Tracey: LOVING that this thread is all male comments ...you GO guys!

Daniel:  think we need a quota of female commentary ...

Paul: This then becomes a real "social change" issue. And no easy answers. I feel the Board Membership issue can be segmented. Non-exec appts do not require women to adopt male behaviours and can bring all the different attitudes, views and challenges that I think drives value through wider and more considered decision making. The harder issue is Exec Director spots which are career / hierarchy appointments and for that I have no clear answers. And if Exec Dir are quoted, you will see stronger token-ism comments and resentment on people getting roles not on perceived merit / best for job criteria. Start with non execs and hope old views start to die out and see more enlightened Exec appointment panels that include non execs is pragmatically a way forward. Big questions to debate though!!

Tracey : Yes big questions Paul There is a target set by UK Government for 2015 or the threat of legislation so yes, Orgs are pushing up numbers with non-exec appts. However, this doesn't address the pipeline and if there is no pipeline of women there will never be this much needed social change

Roger: Board members should be able to stand up for their company against others, and argue their opinions without getting personally involved and emotionally upset. Women generally, are just not good at being like that, it's not in their nature, and the younger ones also have the inescapable disadvantage of being the one who just may get pregnant at some time in the future. Out dated male opinions will only change once women have proven over time that they can also change.

Roger: I  have also said before on here, that no-one should get a job because they are female (or male), they should get the job because they are good at what they do.

Rich: I agree with that last comment Roger. Fundamentally male and female energy works totally differently so I just think its smart to have both angles covered effectively to deal with all situations.

Steve : There are definite benefits to having diversification in any group, however that diversification can't be forced as it leads to resentment. Allow it to be a USP or the piece that gives the edge for one company over another. The moment you regulate or mandate forced equality you remove the equality from the equation and replace it with preference or mandates. As for all the women only events....just try holding a men only event and see how quickly that gets shut down. Separate but equal is a myth, always has been and always will be. Any attempts of creating that separation needs to be re-evaluated.

Tracey: Steve, there were plenty of men at JUMP who are keen on addressing the current inequality but I am sure that if the boards were 90% female there would a need for and understanding of male only groups to talk about why they haven't yet made it as the other half of the population

Paul: Things change. Look at Investment Banking and the reduction of cultural activities that blocked female careers (golf clubs, smoking clubs, strip clubs and other activities that generally are not female friendly activities) are largely gone. Govt targets are rubbish - 3 years to adjust Board membership balances is rubbish. Non exec is possible but Exec spots? No chance. Also take into account different sectors and companies attract diff people. Would 50% rep of Exec Dir posts on a Coal Mining plc board reflect the gender balance of a mining company? It is all about sustaining attitudinal change. Is like drink driving - is now abhorrent to most of us now but acceptable 25 years ago. But there are still pockets of resistance. It will take time and effort. I was involved in women only outdoor challenge events in 1996 so this is also nothing new. We all have groups and networks to support change and events like this that encourage more diversity through competence and being the best choice rather than a forced choice can only be applauded.

Carol... i like the comment that a business should choose the right person not just because they are female. i used to want to be a ball breaking director of my own business but its not in my nature - i have a feminine core and i am happiest helping people and making sure the other stuff gets done if a quota is brought in it would mean people may be put into a role they actually don't want. i am fully behind empowering women to be where they want to be but to force the hand of employers is not the right way to get things done. instead of a quota why not have education about masculine and feminine that would help us all to understand each other better, from the people i see who have relationship issues it is normally that one of them has forgotten how to be themselves ie a woman who has become masculine and is trying to crush her man or a man who has lost his manly essence and doesn't know how to be a leader any more. i applaud your work tc, i am all for us all being equal in the vast majority of things but to try to be equal in gender is a difficult one for me to get. if men are men and women are women then the world may be a different place - just saying.

Steve: It's not a case of men being better it's a case of the available pool of applicants the have the necessary skills and experience happen to be mostly male. People that are on boards tend to be entrepreneurs that started successful companies or CEOs or similar skills needed for the company. I think a better question might be why aren't there more successful women entrepreneurs?

Tracey: Biggest growth  in recent years has been women entrepreneurs ...BECAUSE their skills are not recognised or needed in corporations

Alan: I NEVER said nor implied men were better in any way, I'm sorry but that's your interpretation... and actually one that I have come across many a time. The idea of inverse sexual discrimination is as abhorrent as positive sexual discrimination.

‎Tracey: Carol.. Love it! Whole of JUMP conference was pink and there was even a harpist on stage and the Minister had her nails done at the nail bar before her speech

Tracey: Alan....sorry I must misunderstand. I thought you said the best person for the job but 90% of them are male?

Alan: Of course that's my opinion... and always happy to debate that one. I have a considerable amount of experience with this issue, having managed diverse teams across Europe!

Tracey: Isn't that an implicit assumption that men are better for the job Alan am I discriminating by objecting to that and calling for a wider range of leadership styles and a recognition that women can be feminine AND lead ?

Steve: If your pool of applicants is 1 mil. 950k happen to be men to start. Women experience a massive growth and are now 100k instead of 50k. In the grand scheme of things they are still only 10%. Numbers made up. Point being its a math problem not a sex problem.

Tracey: I think women outnumber men Steve in the general population and are getting better qualifications and, for a very long time, Co's have recruited more female grads than male grads but ...still.... the other half of the population disappears after mid management and the research shows its not because they want kids its because they don't believe they will be recognised or promoted in the same way as men

Alan: Just to say, please don't think for 1 mo' that I'm 'bashing' what you're saying, it's just that I have an opinion, and am enjoying debating it. After all, it's through debate that we broaden our minds and re-enforce or challenge our beliefs. To your specific point, why is than an implicit assumption. I agree wholeheartedly that women can be feminine (or in fact who they want to be) and still lead, they should have that right just as men can be masculine (or in fact who they want to be) and still lead. To your point about leadership styles, surely not just for the sake of it - that would discriminate against the most suited). No.. IMHO, figure out the job spec, define the person spec to fill that role (experience, qualifications, track record etc), recruit and measure. Why get hung up over their sex?

Alan ...Regarding the point about disappearing female talent, if you follow that argument, surely the issue lies with the individual mindset of all those individuals, addressing that at it's core is surely different than just (and excuse my simplistic phraseology here) plonk women in roles just to even up the numbers!

Tracey: We get hung up over sex Alan because there aren't enough women in these roles and unconscious bias is largely to blame. How do you think Carol or any of us would get on if a large Org had any idea that we were going to lead in a pink and fluffy style? Nope, we have to be like a bloke in a skirt

Steve: Not if a woman in a pink fluffy outfit started it. Entrepreneurs become board members not people just getting promoted from the ground up. Start and run a successful business then the rest will follow

John: Interesting comment about women Roger... I know plenty of men who are not able to debate or argue their opinions without getting personally involved and emotionally upset. After all emotional intelligence is a learnt skill not specific to any gender. And neither is business acumen. Business is changing rapidly and the way we do business is changing rapidly. I'm not a fan of quotas myself. Merit is what its about and thankfully there are some enlightened business people, both men and women, who are proactively breaking the hold because they recognise the advantages of diversification as a means to create new results. Waiting for someone else to change before you do means nobody gets anywhere fast.

Alan: I don't subscribe to that. I know a particularly successful businesswoman who does pink and fluffy, but above all, delivers in her chosen profession! To your other comments... if I follow your logic, then what you're really saying is that a significant portion of the roles are occupied by the wrong PERSON. If that is because of unconscious bias, then education is surely the answer?

Alan: Loving this debate!

Tracey: In 10 years of women's leadership development I have NEVER seen a woman in pink fluffy clothes! And YES I do think there are a LOT of the wrong people in those jobs. You can predict a traders success rate by measuring his testosterone in the morning. I suggest that would have more of a sustainable world and less Enron's, Lehman's and Fred the Shred's with a bit more balance but do you really think those kinds of men are ever going to willingly give up power to let more women in wearing pink fluffy clothes?

Alan: Whoa, if there's a direct and objective correlation between testosterone and results, then employ accordingly! And I would suspect that if there was a direct, measurable and objective between pink/fluffy, and results, then again employ accordingly. For me it's about merit and not sex!

Tracey: You missed my point. Testosterone takes risks that makes money for today and makes markets crash

Alan : Then the metrics are wrong! But that's quite a leap, and quite a hypothesis to say that had women been the drivers, that the markets would not have crashed! I'll give you one example why the metrics are wrong. US Corporation Law requires the stewards of any incorporated company to short term maximise shareholder value. Stifles long term investment and a whole bunch of other stuff. I worked under this 'rule' for enough years to know it can't be right!

Tracey: Lots is wrong but none of it will get fixed by doing the same old same old 

Alan : Ah, the definition of insanity... doing the same thing and expecting different results! Signing off for now. Thanks to all for a stimulating debate!

Paul: FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 boards gave interesting profiles. The entrepreneur argument for non execs does not stack - mostly, the are ex CEO's or experts, and many have multiple non exec roles. You also need to look at age profile, which does attach certain social and business values which gave evolved in others. Exec Dir is about delivery and results - non exec roles are around challenge, holding exec's accountable and helping exec see issues clearly. Experiences and differences are critical. Change will genuinely occur when the next 1-2 generations pass through the non exec typical age window of 50-70. Do not expect it faster!! I genuinely think social attitudes will change but i take a view using my set of close friends as a straw poll - 1 of us very entrepreneur and risk, one financial savvy, one practical peace maker and one "Sid the Sexist". Expect 25% to change fast, 50% slowly and 25% not at all. Apply that to make pop and you then see how long it will take 

Roger   "Waiting for someonee else to change before you do means nobody gets anywhere fast"... How many years have women been fighting for their rights? I rest my case when I read that we all wore pink, and the minister had her nails done! (who would you choose to stand up for YOUR rights, someone who bangs his fist on the table, ore someone who wears pink and has her nails done?)  PS for those who have misunderstood, this is NOT chauvinism (sp?) Men are different from women, not better, different! but when a fighter is needed for your sides advantage in a tough environment, hob nail boots will always triumph over pink fluffy nails. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

Jan ...As a corporate women I'm all for quotas b/c otherwise it has been estimated to take another 50 years to have gender diversity at all mgmt levels and this is too long and unfair to half the population to continue to work very hard and not reap the benefits. I don't believe the argument about it resulting in lots of incompetent women being appointed is valid b/c this assumes that all men in mgmt positions today are competent and we all know that this is not true or else Dilbert wouldn't be such a success! Women are 55% of university graduates and their grades on average are higher than their male counterparts so they are very qualified. There are many over qualified women doing lower level jobs than they are capable of because male leadership traits are the ones that are valued and promoted against in the workplace. This is despite much research showing higher business results when there is a gender balanced mgt team in place.

15 minutes ago · Like