Gender quotas in corporate boardrooms – an increasing trend
On March 6, 2015, Germany passed a law that will require companies to give 30 percent of the seats on their corporate boards to women starting next year. In recent years, there has been a trend in European legislatures to pass laws requiring greater representation of women in corporate boardrooms.
According to an article in the New York Times, this trend began with Norway passing the first legislation which required such quotas for board positions, and Spain, France, and Iceland followed with similar legislation. Each of these countries now require 40 percent of their corporate board positions to be held by women. A number of other European countries have this quota set at 30 percent.
The New York Times reports that in the United States, which has no legislation requiring such a quota, women hold approximately 17 percent of the seats on corporate boards.
This current trend in Europe brings to mind the ethical questions: What should a government’s role be with respect to such issues? What do you think of such legislation?
I think it is important to have diversity on a companies board first of all to get all sorts of perspectives on issues and legislations in the company. I think that the majority of the people you control our country would not like the government interfering that much on the major businesses in the United States. Personally I think that these companies need a little bit of government control on every level, not too much just enough to keep them in line and not take advantage of the power that they wield. Bump it up a bit make it so that there should be “at least 40%.”
I do think there should be a law for companies to require companies to give 30% of their seats on their corporate boards. A lot of countries view women as minorities which gives them less opportunities as men. Although, it is possible that men with more experience than these women have with the job may get turned down, I do think companies should still give women equal opportunities. Before the law, only 17% was given to women. Although it is unknown whether that was because women were being viewed as minorities, or just because they did not have experience. I still believe that women should have some opportunities in the corporate world, which is why having a law could have importance. Although there is still always the issue that with the law, unexperienced women are given seats as opposed to experienced men getting the seats based off of the law.
In consideration of the government’s role in any hierarchy of corporate or business structure I do not think they should have any say of who gets what seat and how many. I think that this could go very left field, especially in the United States where we have so many EEO rights and issues. I do think that more women should take an active role in executive corporations being board members and such.
In example, Bright House Networks a local cable company based out of Syracuse N.Y. has a woman on the Board of Directors, as well as being the President of the company taking over after Steve Miron announced his retirement 4 years ago. Should governments of any type take an active role in saying who should or has to do what in Corporate USA? I believe this would only invite Governmental Policy and Regulations in today’s business world. Which in turn is something that the Supreme Court wouldn’t want to rule over. It would open up a whole new class of debate on privatized vs corporate regulations.
In my opinion, a government is set in place to levy equality and fair rule. Should a body of people not be able to construct and maintain these commonsense rights in life, the government is moral obligation by its very concept to step in and ensure equality with fair rule. Also in my opinion, such legislation requiring equality is progressive and idealistic to its purpose. Only when it is truly equal, fifty-fifty if you will, then will it have actually fulfilled its purpose. Men and women are completely different, but as we are all human, we must all be equally and proportionately represented in all settings, not just simply boardrooms.
Personally, I’m kind of stuck in the middle on this issue. I like that women are given a better chance to “break the glass ceiling” and be put in corporate positions. Men and women view things differently, so having a female perspective could be useful when generating ideas or considering different perspectives.
However, I do feel that corporate positions should be earned, not simply given to meet a quota. If a company has one board members seat left, and their are potential candidates are between a man and woman, things get shady. If the man were more qualified, but the legal quota had not been met for the required number of women, the man may feel discriminated against, and cheated because he was not given the role he deserved. The woman may also feel uncomfortable accepting the position, because she didn’t earn it, she was merely chosen to meet the quota.
Hence my indecisive position on the legislation.
I disagree with this rule, i believe someone working in such a high ranking position such as the government should have to earn their spot above the other candidates. If they are automatically giving seats to women then it defeats the purpose of everyone having equal opportunity. I do believe that more women should be in positions such as the corporate board but only if they earn the position through their hard work and being better then the other candidates, if a male is more qualified for the position then the female the he should get it, its not about the sex of the individual but rather the work they are producing.
I believe that fairness and equality in the workplace is an issue that should be resolved by the companies themselves, not by the government. Large corporations should take it upon themselves to bring diversity into the workplace and make it fair for everyone. The government should not have to pass legislation to promote a larger number of women in high ranking positions. I believe that ideal situation the sex of a person, male or female, should not be a factor when they are being considered for any position.
I do not agree with the rule. As a woman, I believe that I do not want anything handed to me based on my sex, but rather my performance and capabilities to perform the job or task that has been assigned to me. As long as a woman is given the same opportunity to succeed, and earn the job, title or salary, then I think that is fair. If I, or any other woman is not capable of performing at the expected level, then they do not deserve the advantage. I would not feel right accepting something that I feel I haven’t pushed myself to achieve.
I agree with Germany’s law to require company’s to give women 30% of their
corporate board seats. Women to this day are still treated unequal. Men make more
money, have better paying jobs, ect. With this new law one can only hope that women
might have the same opportunities soon. Germany may look forward to an increase in
population as more women discover this new law. I commend Germany for their
recognition and value for women, and hope that Germany will become an example to
other countries.
I completely agree with Germany on the idea that woman should have 30% of the seats in corporate board seats. Although times have definitely changed since the 1900s when woman had little to no rights, woman still do not have as many rights as men do in modern days. Having a law that supports woman in the business industry will help woman achieve equal rights with men. Even if the percentage isn’t completely fair yet, (50/50), woman are still slowing catching up with the percentages in the business world.
I think it’s important that women be given equal representation as men. It creates a sense of equality that is only fair in today’s day in age. Without legislations like these women are prevented from being equally represented. Within the United States women only account for 17% of board member while men account for the other 83%. Dynamics like these must be stopped. Though the laws don’t grant women the exact equal representations, it’s definitely a step in the right direction.
I like the idea of companies giving 30% of the seats on their corporate boards to women but to those women who deserve it. I do not think things should be handed to people because of race, gender, religion, etc. I think people should have to work hard for such positions and titles.
I understand the concern with women being promoted to higher boards within the company they work for, but mandating a quota for it I feel can also be seen as a slap in the face. Yes, the “glass ceiling” has been cracked; at what cost? Are the companies going to keep headquarters in that country or think about moving to a different country, one that does not mandate the quotas. In the countries that have the 30 percent clubs seems to be doing a decent job of feeling the corporate board seats with woman.
As a woman, I have seen and witnessed some discrimination against women in being hired in qualified positions in the workplace. It is reasonable to give 30% of the corporate seats to women, but I also feel that those seats should only be given to the most qualified regardless of gender. It is astounding that only 17% of woman in the U.S. have corporate positions. I think this is why Europe has chosen to take a more extreme approach and mandate a percentage to avoid gender discrimination. It does open a door of opportunity to those women that would not have had a chance otherwise. Is government the only way to spread corporate jobs fairly, or can we just put another “policy” in place that these companies can and would want to follow?
I personally think that gender should have no play at all throughout legislation. Gender is not a qualification. Quality of work and qualifications are what should be the basis on which people are appointed for the position.
I think it is a good idea for more women being promoted to the companies corporate boards because it allows these woman who many I assume have families, to make more money for their family.
I think it’s a good thing for women to have more options in the work force as well as being able to state their own opinions in the company they are involved with. Just because men have been doing it for years, does not mean women are incapable and who knows, maybe the women on the board will make the companies more successful.
The pressure is great when it comes to gender equality in the workplace. Qualified men and women should be treated equally in the workplace, note that they need to be QUALIFIED first. The issue that arises when you place a quota on the percentage of women that need to be placed in corporate position is that it could cause irresponsible hiring. Quotas have a due date in which they must be fulfilled, and that means if only 20% of the women hired are actually qualified, then the law of the next 10% would have to be filled regardless. This causes a sense of desperation and may lead to poor decision making. I am not assuming that there are less qualified women then there are men of course, but by placing a quota is creates an unhealthy balance for hiring. Even if there were 90% female and 10% male, yet they were all well qualified, then there is no issue.
If a government wants to be fair and diverse, they have to be able to have an equal amount of men and woman involved in their legislation. Gender equality in the work place is important, so as long as they have the qualifications and are able to do the job required under the circumstances, the position should be able to be filled by anyone eligible. IMO, I think it’s great to see more woman being given these opportunities. I don’t think it would effect government legislation negatively and it would appeal to woman positively, so why not?
I think this is a great idea. Some studies show that if women are the “bread winners” for a household, she will turn it into a positive thing for the house family. She will get everyone involved and benefit from the position. This may not be true in many case now a days however, if women have more education and are allowed more corporate positions they may bring a new light to many different fields. Women look at things differently than men, and this may help a company prosper. I wish the government did not have to make a law about it that it would happen on it’s own. Equal rights for all is just as important.
I agree with the European countries, every corporation should have a requirement quota to the ratio of women to men in their board committees. This would very well eliminate all or close to all of the gender biased choices these committees may make. Also this would give way to the women that are being denied higher ranked professional titles in the business ladder. Time and time again women are being discriminated against even when they doing the same job as a man they get pad less just because of their gender. Equal rights is important for every single living being and this is just one step to us making things fair and justified in the business world. Also the argument of being a board member should only be about your qualifications and quality of work, not about gender is flawed. The reason it is flawed is because all of the women that are now on that board in the European countries are most likely more qualified than any man because for them to get to the position they are in they had to work twice as hard
While I believe that diversity in any position of power is beneficial, I do not believe there should be a “quota” for any race or gender. Quotas create an issue concerning qualification. If a woman is given a position on a board simply to meet the 30%, a more qualified person may be stripped of their opportunity that they may have worked much harder to get. By attempting to achieve equality we are actually creating an unfair work environment.
I would love to see more women in the corporate boardroom, but not because they are women, but because they earned it just like everyone else on the board. All opportunities should be based on who is the most qualified. That is what makes corporations good and therefore makes more job opportunities, and therefore makes the economy better for everyone. I do not feel that quotas are good for anyone. We should all strive to be the best at what we do.
The government should not have a role in this issue because women should have to earn their positions in companies, through the experience, education and promotional aspects. The men who hold positions on the boards had to present these qualities in order to be promoted, so women should have to do the same. When the government put these laws in place there are taking control of the company’s and giving women the right to be promoted without effort.
I don’t believe that government should play a role in privately owned businesses. Private industries should have the right to hire whom they feel is the best qualified person for the position available. If government feels the need to set requirements and regulations it should be held to government agencies. We have laws to protect individuals rights and there comes a point when creating more laws or regulations starts infringing on private businesses rights.
I have never had a firm stance on issues like this. I don’t want to feel like someone is giving me a job just because I’m a woman. If a man is more qualified in a certain job than I am, he should get the job. In the same breath, I know women are looked over because men assume that women are inferior. So I go back and forth with my opinions. I am a firm believer that if I work hard enough I will be whatever I want to be. No position should be handed away because I received an X chromosome from my father instead of a Y chromosome. The job positions that we are discussing here isn’t a manager at a fast food restaurant, it’s a corporate boardroom position, so they are very important. Maybe if the hiring process was unbiased and conducted like a double blind study, than I would think that would be more ‘fair’. For example, all resumes shouldn’t have names on them or any clues that give away the applicants gender. If applicants were selected like that, than we wouldn’t need to have a certain percentage of women/men.
At first glance it sounds like a great idea. To equalize the playing field, and for woman to get equal money for equal work. Most upper management positions in the corporate world are held by men and it would be nice to get more women in these positions. However i believe that quotas just like affirmative actions, do the individual a disservice. As a woman I want to be hired for a job because I am the best candidate for the job. Women are intelligent and just as qualified as men. Race, gender, age or any other means of discrimination should be illegal. The best person for the job is the one that should be hired regardless if they are male or female etc.
I truly believe this is a good idea, but only if those individuals are qualified. I don’t think having women fill these seats just for the sake having a quota met is fair. Of course I do not know how the decision is made to meet these quotas (article doesn’t really say).
I strongly believe in fairness and equal rights, but only if it is truly fair for everyone. This could lead to another type of affirmative action case like in 1978, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. If we are going to meet quotas based on gender, then there should be a quotas on race too.
The government should regulate laws that a process is in place to make sure equally is being met.
It is a difficult subject to address, but I personally do not agree with imposing any kind of quotas of participation in companies, because I think such sort of actions only creates more conflict between groups, as it leaves the feeling on others employees that people are arriving at higher positions not by their professional merits, but by the requirements that companies must comply in order to achieve the imposed quotas.
I do not believe that modern women need that kind of help to get what they want. Lately women leadership in fields that were traditionally dominated by men such as politics, science and business has continuously increased. Women’s performance in positions of power and authority has eliminated negative misconceptions about women’s ability to execute such jobs. Around the world we can mention many women who work as political leaders, which was one of the hardest fields for women to make a career on.
Rather than imposing quotas of participation for women in business, companies should re-think the current working models to facilitate the reconciliation of work and family life for working women; thus, empowering female talent to participate and excel in business and professional environments.
While I think discrimination could be an issue in the case of women in the board room I think it should be dealt with on a corporate level not at Governments level. There may be very good reasons women are not heavily weighted or evenly in some corporations. If it not due to the nature of the business and it is only discrimination women being discriminated against should deal with it. Forcing women to participate would not be good for a business they are not suited for.
I feel like the government should already have taken care of this issue a while back. Back in the old days when there was war (and still today there is war) men went to war, while women stayed at home. Furthermore, women did odd jobs that men did. Pretty much, women are capable of doing such task. It’s just that after men returned back from war, they started taking back their old jobs or the things that the women were doing. I think that Germany’s law to require companies to give women 30% is fine. Furthermore, there should be more diversity in the work environment. Other than that, I feel like companies should hire employees based on their skills, talents, capability, etc and not based on things like gender, culture, religion, etc.
I believe if they are going to put a quota on gender equality then they should at least make it 50% and skew it in either direction. but i would say that when it come to the government voting on corporations they should not be allowed to intervene in the structure of the company. If they are dealing with government positions thats more equal right because they are voted by the people.
The importance of the participation of women in decision making cannot be overemphasized as they represent a significantly higher number compared to men between the ages of 15 years to 65 years and over as of the 2012 in the USA according to the CIA world fact book. Nevertheless, unlike the recent trend of several countries placing gender quotas to demand representation of female in corporate boardrooms, I find that decision gender biased in itself. Democracy has already given the right of participation and freedom to indulge in corporate activities to both male and female genders, hence a quota is in excess. A fair representation of corporate board members is to allow whoever is deemed qualified to be given the opportunity to participate without necessarily reserving slots for women. The adverse effect of such quota will be a representation of non qualified women on the corporate board, who may be less functional but are represented to meet the requirements of the legislation resulting in low productivity.The best resort is to encourage women participation and establish women empowerment programs that can develop the average woman into a corporate board member material.
I ment and not skew it in either direction.
I believe in diversity in the workplace. If they are going to put an percentage of women that has to be in a corporate seat, then we have to break the women down into a cultural diversity as well. because in today’s society, we still have racism in the workplace. While they require 30% of women in the workforce, what if 28% were Caucasian women, then that would not make this requirement a effective diverse decision. On the other hand, if this is an success, women would have the opportunity to accomplish more in their present career fields and it would inspire more women to become successful. I don’t think they would have trouble finding qualified women to work in the corporate office, if the percentage rises to 40%.
I agree with the decision to give 30% of the seats to women. However,I don’t agree to just picking women at hand. These seats should be given to those who truly have the knowledge, experience, drive, and potential to fulfill the job at hand. There are women who work twice as hard as their male counterparts to prove that they belong at the top and they are passed over everyday for positions that they can, without a doubt, perform better. 30% isn’t a lot but having laws in place such as these, is a start to equality in the workplace. It creates diversity not only in the sense of gender but also in the sense of ideas that can be brought to the table to better the company.
Diversity is important in almost everything we do today in our lives. I do understand the mandate of making 30% of the seats having to be for female members. Also why put a number on this specific area? There shouldn’t be a cap or minimum for how much a gender should be used in the work place just to enforce equality. It should go to the most qualified person regardless of gender, race, or age.
This is a very interesting topic and I’m kind of flip flopping all over the place. i think it is important to not limit corporate board positions to only one gender, but a mixture of the most qualified and best for the job, whether it be a male, female, or both. However this seems to be a persistent issue for countries to start setting quotas for the number of women holding corporate board positions. maybe it’s a sexist situation. Women may be looked down on for positions with higher authority. in that case i do believe the government should step in somewhat to help the distribution of corporate board positions, however don’t just put women who may not be qualified for the job just to reach the quota.
I do agree with this law but it saddens me that it had to become a law. Having more women on a corporate board should just happen on its own. Although, this law will now allow more women to have their ideas and perspectives said in the corporate world. I hope other countries take part in this new legislation.
I don’t think that there should be a quota for minorities unless there is a serious discrimination problem. There may be some discrimination that still happens today, but I think that some of the reason that women aren’t as prevalent in the government today could be that there hasn’t been enough time between women getting rights and getting jobs and now. Not enough time has passed where everything is equal. eventually, things will be mixed and the people who discriminate will be gone. We just aren’t there yet. However, giving jobs in the government to a women, over a man who is more qualified, isn’t fair.
I do understand that diversity should be in every work force to give a wider opinion but the fact that we have to enforce a strict 30% is in my opinion insane. Why should someone be put above other just because of there sex. Now I know that is the point with this percentage, because men have been put above women in the work force, how does reversing the issue solve the problem though.
It is definitely an okay idea since it is giving opportunity to women. However, I don’t think that this is entirely fair to women. It should be whoever is qualified for the job. Making it only 30% does not seem right to me, it would be more fair to be 50% for women and 50% for male. I feel that women are just as capable at holding high corporate positions as males do. 40% seems like a better number but I still believe that it should be whoever is much more cut out for the job, even if it is 100% male or 100% female. But I also believe in a diverse work environment so that two different minds, male and female, to come together to create an ideal standpoint that can be satisfying to both the male and female audiences.
I believe that it is very important to have diversity, especially on corporate boards. Diversity helps to better represent the needs of each race, sex, gender, religious belief, etc. I strongly agree that more places need to have a better diversity ratio on their boards, but I do not think that it should be a law. I feel that they should just simply do it out of the best interest of their business. Forcing the boards to have diversity means that they are required by law to have that diversity and they may just pick anyone to represent that diversity, whether or not they represent well or not. I feel it should be a law to have to have diversity, but that there should not be a requirement on the percentage that must be diverse. This will most likely only cause more controversy because fixing one problem will always lead to more. You can never make everyone happy.
This current trend in Europe brings to mind the ethical questions: What should a government’s role be with respect to such issues? What do you think of such legislation?
I
I think the government should be involved, because not so long ago women did not have the right to vote or own property, the government had to pass the law to extend those rights to women. In order for women to be equally represented in business the government has to pass a law.
Women are still making less money than men, and the more a women works in a field, the less this field paid. There are many women out there qualify as much as a men, but for men it is easier to find the best position. I would say 50/50. Women have right to work like men do. They have the right to make same amount.