Increasing diversity in business is not only morally right - it's the key to success

Research has found that companies whose boards were made up of at least a third by women are 42 per cent more profitable - it makes perfect sense.

A fortnight ago I stood up to deliver a key note speech at the Women’s Business Forum conference. I took up the opportunity to discuss the importance of promoting diversity in the workplace with relish, as it is a topic that has been at the forefront of my mind throughout my career.

Women and their promotion to top flight positions is an important part of the picture. Despite the notable announcement a few weeks ago that Janet Yellen will become the next Chairman of the Federal Reserve - the first woman to occupy the post - there remains a lot of work to be done if women are to have the same opportunity to acquire executive positions as their male counterparts.

A recent report by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) found that female employment rates in the UK continue to lag behind those for men, despite the recent rise in the state pension age for women pushing the figure up slightly. Furthermore the study found that women are increasingly disappearing from executive jobs - women only occupy a quarter of the highest paid top ten per cent of posts.

That there is a dearth of female talent represented at board level in the UK is a truth universally acknowledged. White papers have been drawn up to address this dilemma. In the Davies Report, published in 2011 and penned by Lord Davies of Abersoch, Lord Davies proffers a solution to redress the current gender imbalance of UK boards, calling for strong voluntary action in the shape of FTSE100 companies signing up to the voluntary target of having 25 per cent of their boards comprising women by 2015.

Recommendations such as this are laudable and achievable and I believe are a more organic way of bringing about effective change than using the blunt instrument of legislation to introduce mandatory quotas. However, it is unequivocally true that rapid change is essential.

The issue of women on boards is part of a wider debate about encouraging diversity in the workplace. This matter is more essential and greater than the need to increase the number of female CEOs and board-level executives, although this is important it leaves itself open to accusations of "tokenism". Diversity is about effecting a cultural change in organisations and industries, transforming businesses from close-minded institutions to those that embrace diversity in all formats. The reasons for bringing about change are manifold but are more complicated than mere sexual politics and political correctness.

A recent piece of research found that companies whose boards were made up of at least a third by women are 42 per cent more profitable. Diversity in the work place is not only a healthy, laudable corporate ideal to embrace, it is also profitable. The 30 Percent Club, founded by Newton Investment Management's CEO Helena Morrissey, has a strapline under its tree logo that I think is particularly important: "Growth through diversity". It is this message - growth through diversity - that is so important. Simply put, companies are more likely to thrive with a diverse workforce.

It is my sincere belief that diversity should form the backbone of a well-rounded and robust business plan. This business tenet stems from a desire to create a culture whereby the best and brightest talent can lead regardless of gender, religion, race or sexual orientation. It is this objective, this vision, that has been the principal driver of the last 35 years of my life as a business-building lawyer.  

Diversity is a source of competitive advantage; a better business is a more diverse business. Assembling diverse teams enables more innovation, greater customer awareness, and generates better results. People, cultures and states are not homogeneous, they are heterogeneous - this is particularly true in today's global society. Consequently businesses should strive to be as diverse as the countries and regions they operate in. Creating this workplace balance is part of building a successful firm, but actions, not just words, are required to bring this about. Those businesses that do not encourage diversity should start doing so now, or else face quotas or, even more likely, falling revenues as more dynamic, diverse competitors steal a march.

The all-male board of Fisons Ltd in 1960 - how much has changed in 2013? Photograph: Central Press/Getty Images.

Co-CEO of DLA Piper

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Leaving the cleaning to someone else makes you happier? Men have known that for centuries

Research says avoiding housework is good for wellbeing, but women have rarely had the option.

If you want to be happy, there is apparently a trick: offload the shitwork onto somebody else. Hire cleaner. Get your groceries delivered. Have someone else launder your sheets. These are the findings published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, but it’s also been the foundation of our economy since before we had economics. Who does the offloading? Men. Who does the shitwork? Women.

Over the last 40 years, female employment has risen to almost match the male rate, but inside the home, labour sticks stubbornly to old patterns: men self-report doing eight hours of housework a week, while women slog away for 13. When it comes to caring for family members, the difference is even more stark: men do ten hours, and women 23.

For your average heterosexual couple with kids, that means women spend 18 extra hours every week going to the shops, doing the laundry, laying out uniform, doing the school run, loading dishwashers, organising doctors' appointments, going to baby groups, picking things up, cooking meals, applying for tax credits, checking in on elderly parents, scrubbing pots, washing floors, combing out nits, dusting, folding laundry, etcetera etcetera et-tedious-cetera.

Split down the middle, that’s nine hours of unpaid work that men just sit back and let women take on. It’s not that men don’t need to eat, or that they don’t feel the cold cringe of horror when bare foot meets dropped food on a sticky kitchen floor. As Katrine Marçal pointed out in Who Cooked Adam Smiths Dinner?, men’s participation in the labour market has always relied on a woman in the background to service his needs. As far as the majority of men are concerned, domestic work is Someone Else’s Problem.

And though one of the study authors expressed surprise at how few people spend their money on time-saving services given the substantial effect on happiness, it surely isn’t that mysterious. The male half of the population has the option to recruit a wife or girlfriend who’ll do all this for free, while the female half faces harsh judgement for bringing cover in. Got a cleaner? Shouldn’t you be doing it yourself rather than outsourcing it to another woman? The fact that men have even more definitively shrugged off the housework gets little notice. Dirt apparently belongs to girls.

From infancy up, chores are coded pink. Looking on the Toys “R” Us website, I see you can buy a Disney Princess My First Kitchen (fuchsia, of course), which is one in the eye for royal privilege. Suck it up, Snow White: you don’t get out of the housekeeping just because your prince has come. Shop the blue aisle and you’ll find the Just Like Home Workshop Deluxe Carry Case Workbench – and this, precisely, is the difference between masculine and feminine work. Masculine work is productive: it makes something, and that something is valuable. Feminine work is reproductive: a cleaned toilet doesn’t stay clean, the used plates stack up in the sink.

The worst part of this con is that women are presumed to take on the shitwork because we want to. Because our natures dictate that there is a satisfaction in wiping an arse with a woman’s hand that men could never feel and money could never match. That fiction is used to justify not only women picking up the slack at home, but also employers paying less for what is seen as traditional “women’s work” – the caring, cleaning roles.

It took a six-year legal battle to secure compensation for the women Birmingham council underpaid for care work over decades. “Don’t get me wrong, the men do work hard, but we did work hard,” said one of the women who brought the action. “And I couldn’t see a lot of them doing what we do. Would they empty a commode, wash somebody down covered in mess, go into a house full of maggots and clean it up? But I’ll tell you what, I would have gone and done a dustman’s job for the day.”

If women are paid less, they’re more financially dependent on the men they live with. If you’re financially dependent, you can’t walk out over your unfair housework burden. No wonder the settlement of shitwork has been so hard to budge. The dream, of course, is that one day men will sack up and start to look after themselves and their own children. Till then, of course women should buy happiness if they can. There’s no guilt in hiring a cleaner – housework is work, so why shouldn’t someone get paid for it? One proviso: every week, spend just a little of the time you’ve purchased plotting how you’ll overthrow patriarchy for good.

Sarah Ditum is a journalist who writes regularly for the Guardian, New Statesman and others. Her website is here.