The general narrative is that the right approach is to introduce gender quotas for women’s representation at board level in companies above a certain size. This idea got its early traction a decade ago based on the statistics that women weren’t, and still aren’t, represented equally at company board level compared to men. In other words, men were and still are overrepresented at the highest positions in the business world.
Why is this a problem?
In a time where focus has changed from equality of opportunity to equality of outcome the inequality debate has changed from what to do to change society over time with the realization that change never comes easily or fast but a longer perspective needs to be the steering wheel rather than a rapid change that often makes the problem bigger, or create new challenges and negative externalities.
A more fundamental problem is that by changing focus from equality of opportunity to equality of outcome the very foundation of the western democracy is shaken and potentially shattered because it’s based on one of the most fundamental ideas, the meritocracy.
All the way back to Plato this concept has been discussed and today there is a strong consensus that meritocracy is not just one of the pillars in the western democracy but also one of the main reasons for the western world’s success and wealth. This doesn’t mean that the concept isn’t directly under attack by certain scholars’ putting it into question whether it’s the best approach to base our society on. As Clifton Mark wrote in Princeton University Press in 2020, “Despite the moral assurance and personal flattery that meritocracy offers to the successful, it ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal. It’s false, and believing in it encourages selfishness, discrimination and indifference to the plight of the unfortunate.” It’s obvious the concept of meritocracy has its flaws and isn’t perfect, but what’s the alternative? Adrian Wooldridge discusses this topic deeply in his book The Aristocracy of Talent: How Meritocracy Made the Modern World where he sees the same imperfect meritocracy but still opposite to Clifton Mark and others, he concludes that it’s still the best concept to build our democracy and society on and can potentially be dangerous to dissolve, at least for now it’s too early to throw the meritocratic based society away.
The strongest argument for a meritocratic approach in society is that the opposite is less desirable. Where some may think the opposite of meritocracy is a more equal society it’s not the truth. Opposite meritocracy is aristocracy and a society based on nepotism and dynasty. This means that by dissolving meritocracy, where the method is to legislate for ensuring equality of opportunity, the result will be a focus on and method to legislate for ensuring equality of outcome that therefore leads to a society based on nepotism and dynasty.
The devil is in the details
The solution has seemed tremendously simple by focusing on the outcome and therefore introducing new government legislation that requires certain actions like a specific percentage of women in boards of larger companies. The first country to introduce this backed by new legislation was Norway with a 40% quota for women at board level in large corporations. Shortly after followed several European countries like Germany, France and Spain. It was expected that Sweden and Denmark would follow their Scandinavian sibling but to this day they haven’t. One could ask why is that since Norway, an aligned partner in all aspects, was a first mover and several European countries followed but why didn’t Sweden and Denmark?
The answer to this question may be cultural. Sweden and Denmark are often interpreted as the most liberal countries in Europe, strongly driven by fundamental values of the indivuídual rights and the values the western democracy is built on. Those values like a meritocratic foundation are a stronghold in these two countries and therefore the idea of a quotas approach to anything in the business world is not a natural path to them.
Another important reason may be the fact that there is no evidence supporting this approach will lead to better, stronger and more successful businesses and therefore a better society as a whole. This has been discussed by experts around the world and hasn’t led to any proof and strong evidence yet.
If not quotas then what?
It seems obvious that there is added value in a broader approach and higher level of diversity in the workplace, which includes the positions on the upper floor. But at the same time there are no easy fixes if we don’t want to undermine the pillars the Western liberal democracy is built upon. Instead we need to have the longer perspective in mind when legislation is made, but also by looking into how we educate and the culture we built not just in the companies but even more importantly in the society as a whole. We need to ask questions like; are girls throughout the school years motivated to go into business, management and strive for the highest positions in business? Are women met with openness towards leadership positions in business? Are women welcomed into the strongest business networks in our society? Do we create the right culture in our organization if there is no room for maternity leave without disqualifying yourself from future leadership positions?
These questions need to be asked, by all of us, and we need to make a change where we come short. The objective should be to change the culture and the mindset, but only where we obviously come short and without undermining the strengths our society are built on, or the free choice of whom to hire in the organization and for women to still have the free choice to choose differently, choose family over career or another kind of a career than leadership. All this has to go hand in hand if we want to keep moving forward in a society where the foundation is equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome.
Politicians tend to look for quick fixes but there are no easy short term solutions for this. It’s a cultural challenge that can be changed by ensuring the right approach throughout the early years in education and parenting to get to a point where we all truly understand that women in business and leadership are as qualified as their colleagues of the other gender. What they choose is up to them alone and we should all accept it, even if the outcome isn’t a 50-50 balance, it probably never will be due to differences in how people and genders prioritise their lives and careers.
