Progress isn't exactly rapid, but we are seeing signs of positive change. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why gender diversity is about more than equality

A recent 12-country study of 393 companies found that women are still largely outnumbered in the non-executive director community, but found that the gender mix is improving.

Promoting diversity is not only morally positive, it makes perfect business sense. To draw on different backgrounds and experiences is to challenge the notion that one culture, behaviour, structure and practice is the right direction to take. It’s a healthy, constructive way of doing business that can deliver greater productivity and profitability

"Diversity" also takes many forms, and is never far from public scrutiny. Just recently, the World Economic Forum (WEF)’s annual meeting in Davos suffered a media outcry at the lack of women delegates, despite the forum’s best efforts to attract a diverse pool.

WEF’s purpose being to improve the state of the world by helping shape the international business agenda, it’s important that the ideas and issues as part of it are mixed - otherwise it quickly becomes a club where people think more and more alike. It’s exactly the same situation within organisations today. While short-term objectives can often be met by a group of similar people (who are naturally aligned and don’t need to be taught how to operate together), generating sustainable, long-term success requires more. Effective boards and teams need diversity for innovation and time and management to make the different opinions workable.

The gender discussions at Davos are mirrored in the Hay Group’s recent report Non-executive directors in Europe 2013, based on a 12-country annual study of 393 of Europe’s largest-quoted companies. However, while the study shows that women are still largely outnumbered in the non-executive director (NED) community, it also highlights how the gender mix is improving. In the last three years the proportion of male board directors has dropped from 87 to 80 percent. Within this, some countries are moving faster than others. Italian companies, for example, though they remain bottom of the league for gender diversity, have made comparatively great strides, moving from 94 per cent male directors last year to 89 per cent this year.

While the NED community is not responsible for running firms, they are highly influential in terms of challenging and contributing to overarching strategies and in ensuring ethical standards of conduct are met in the pursuit of corporate objectives. It’s vital, therefore, that they represent a broad range of thinking which is often acquired through a more diverse group of people.

However, while women are securing more NED roles, the study shows they still earn less than their male counterparts. Two years ago the average pay gap was seven per cent. Last year it was nine and this year it has risen to 10 per cent. How can this be? Well, NEDs are paid fees for being members of the board, and typically get extra fees for chairing or belonging to other board committees, such as audit, remuneration and nominations. Women are even more underrepresented on these committees than they are on the boards (more than half of European companies don’t have a single woman on the audit committee, and the same holds true for remuneration committees). As a result, they end up earning less than their male peers and, crucially, the committees driving much of the board agenda do not benefit from diverse viewpoints.

Gender might grab the headlines, but diversity is a far broader issue. Boards are becoming diverse in a number of ways, driven by the reality that we are all getting more and more international. Fewer directors, 66 per cent at the median, are from the same country of company listing or headquarters; a fall of three percent on last year. Countries like Switzerland, the Netherlands and the UK, which are very open to international trade, often have half the board with an international profile. We’re talking gradual change here, but this does show a movement towards an increasingly healthy combination of ethnic, cultural, educational and professional backgrounds being funnelled into the leadership, strategy and direction of organisations.

So while progress can hardly be described as rapid, and the gender pay gap still needs bridging, we are now seeing signs of change. Just as WEF is likely to take a hard look at how it attracts a wider  audience at Davos in 2015, companies need to consciously consider and examine the formation of its teams. It won’t always be plain sailing - different views naturally lead to disparity and debate. However, the potential gains in terms of scrutinising behaviour in business, challenging perceptions, curbing excess in certain sectors and encouraging wider change across companies to improve working life, reward and benefit for all, are well worth the effort.

Carl Sjostrom is the Hay Group's Regional Director, Executive Reward, Europe

Getty
Show Hide image

10 times Nicola Sturgeon nailed what it's like to be a Remain voter post-Brexit

Scotland's First Minister didn't mince her words.

While Westminster flounders, up in Holyrood, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has busied herself trying to find a way for Scotland to stay in the European Union

And in a speech on Monday, she laid out the options.

The Scottish Nationalist acknowledged the option of independence would not be straightforward, but she added: “It may well be that the option that offers us the greatest certainty, stability and the maximum control over our own destiny, is that of independence.”

She also hinted at a more measured stance, where Scotland could “retain ties and keep open channels” with the EU while other countries within the UK “pursue different outcomes”. 

And she praised the new PM Theresa May’s commitment to wait for a UK-wide agreement before triggering Article 50.

But Sturgeon’s wide-ranging speech also revisited her memories of Brexit, and the days of chaos that followed. Here are some of the best bits.

1. On the referendum

I am the last person you will hear criticising the principle of referenda. But proposing a referendum when you believe in the constitutional change it offers is one thing. Proposing - as David Cameron did - a referendum even though he opposed the change on offer is quite another. 

2. On the result

I told the Scottish Parliament a few days later that I was “disappointed and concerned” by the result. I have to admit that was parliamentary language for a much stronger feeling.

3. On the Leave campaign

I felt, and still feel, contempt for a Leave campaign that had lied and given succour to the racism and intolerance of the far right.

4. On leadership

It seemed abundantly clear to me that people - even many of those who had voted to Leave - were going to wake up feeling very anxious and uncertain. It was therefore the job of politicians, not to pretend that we instantly had all the answers, but to give a sense of direction. To try to create some order out of the chaos. That’s what I was determined to try to do for Scotland. I assumed that UK politicians would do likewise. I was wrong. 

5. On EU nationals

I felt then – and still feel very strongly today - that we must give them as much reassurance as possible. It is wrong that the UK government has not yet given a guarantee of continued residence to those who have built lives, careers and families here in the UK.

6. On karma

You tend to reap what you have sown over many years. It shouldn’t have come as a surprise to politicians who have spent years denigrating the EU and pandering to the myths about free movement, that some voters simply did not believe them when they suddenly started extolling the virtues of both.

7. On teenage voters

I think it was wrong in principle to deny EU nationals and 16 & 17 year olds the right to vote. But, as well as being wrong in principle, it was also tactically foolish. 

8. On slogans

While “Brexit means Brexit” is intended to sound like a strong statement of intent it is, in truth, just a soundbite that masks a lack of any clear sense of direction.

9. On Scotland

Some will say that we also voted to stay in the UK, so we must accept the UK wide verdict. But in 2014, we voted to stay part of a UK that was a member of the EU - indeed, we were told then that protecting our EU membership was one of the main reasons to vote against independence.

10. On taking back control

To end up in a position, which is highly possible, where we have to abide by all the rules of the single market and pay to be part of it, but have no say whatsoever in what the rules are, would not be taking back control, to coin a phrase we’ve heard more than once recently- it would be giving up control.