FAIRER TREATMENT OF THE FAIRER SEX
These days, companies need to communicate with all their stakeholders, says Ruth Sunderland, editor of Observer Business & Media – and that means fairer treatment of the fairer sex:
"Why would I want more women on my board? I don’t see the need to create a politically correct image, and I’m not interested in tokenism.” That was what one corporate grandee told me over lunch a couple of years ago.
His words came back to me recently during the row over the WAGs – Women Against Gordon, not the footballers’ wives – when former Europe Minister Caroline Flint complained of being used by the Prime Minister as “female window dressing”.
What these two incidents have in common is that they betray (or are alleged to betray) an attitude that
women can be used to embody particular messages on behalf of a ruling male – look, I’m politically correct; look I’m egalitarian; or, in the case of Silvio Berlusconi, look, I’ve still got it. Yet the women concerned are not seen as having anything worth saying in their own right.
The group photographs of ‘Blair’s Babes’, the scores of female MPs joining parliament back in 1997, sent out a strong signal that here was a fresh, modern, inclusive style of government, very different to what had gone before. Yet 12 years after that,the media still seems much more comfortable with women in politics when they occupy their traditional role of the consort. Michelle Obama, Sarah Brown and Carla Bruni, who supportively burnish their husband’s image, are all more popular than outspoken types such as Hillary Clinton.
Perhaps it’s not surprising this attitude is so persistent: throughout history, women have been the muses, rather than the artists, the receivers, rather than the creators of messages.
“Overt sexism is deemed unacceptable – but window dressing is still with us”
It’s a problem in corporate life, because if organisations fail to communicate effectively with female customers and employees, they create needless difficulties for themselves.
Going back to my unenlightened chairman at the start of this piece, my belief is that change has to start at the top. Getting more women in the boardroom – or in the Cabinet – should not be about window dressing but about genuinely bringing in a more diverse range of views, experiences and perceptions; that change will then filter downwards and outwards.
In Norway, where there has been a law in full force since last year compelling companies to have at least 40% of seats in the boardroom filled by women. This was initially greeted with horror: the fear was that there sub-par female candidates would force highquality men off the board – in practice, there has been no such meltdown.
In the middle of the credit crunch, when the reputation of business is at an all-time low, companies have never had a greater need to communicate effectively with all their stakeholders. Many seem to have forgotten that includes women – who make up half the population, take 80% of spending decisions, and are a significant segment of the workforce. Despite this, female executives are still far too often thought of as high-class decoration in the boardroom, rather than wielding real power.
Too many companies still give off the impression they have only hired a woman or two in order to not look backward or blinkered. The credit crunch has at least given a new impetus to those arguing for more diversity on boardrooms, the feeling being that dominance by the ‘pale, male and stale’ led to too little questioning of the prevailing commercial orthodoxy.
Companies should take that on board. Very few organisations nowadays think it acceptable to convey an overtly sexist world view, but window dressing is still with us. At best this is pointless, at worst, damaging. Organisations need to start treating women on a genuinely equal footing, from the top down, if they are to have any hope of communicating with female customers, employees - or even voters.
