Board quotas for women - is this really the gender

Board quotas for women - is this really the gender issue of the day?
Do businesses need quotas to drive up the number of women at Board level? This feels like the gender
question ‘du jour’ with the European Commission pushing again for a 40% quota for female non-executive
directors on the Boards of large European companies. Certainly it seems that there is a need for more
action given progress to date; the UK only achieved a 3% increase in the number of FTSE 100 female Board
members from 2004-2010 despite all the guidelines and good intentions. At this rate of change the Davies
Report concluded that it would take over 70 years to achieve gender-balanced Boardrooms in the UK.
Clearly we need to think again as current activities aren’t moving the needle, but are Boardroom quotas
where our focus needs to be?
Surely the more pressing question is ‘What is stopping women from occupying more mid and senior levels
of leadership – leading our teams, departments and divisions?’ When women make up 46% of the
economically active workforce in the UK and the number of male to female graduates entering business is
roughly equal, why do we see so few women occupying leadership roles? Childcare and flexible working
arrangements can’t completely explain away this enduring imbalance. Women are still over represented at
the bottom of organisations but missing in action when it comes to roles with balance sheet responsibilities.
Quotas won’t deliver long-term change unless we are simultaneously expanding the pool of emerging
female leaders and ensuring they have the right corporate experience to equip them to play senior roles.
The leadership blueprint
One explanation for the paucity of women in key roles is that the blueprint for leadership in business is,
well, blue. Organisations have an unconscious male bias factored into how they approach leadership.
Their leadership infrastructure; their competency models, assessment tools, development programmes and
promotion processes are based on predominantly male behavioural data. More insidiously, this blueprint
affects how we talk about successful leaders, what organisations informally encourage and assumptions
about what good leadership looks like in practice. In my experience, today’s organisations may be less
inclined to recruit in the image of their male senior leaders but they still develop them in that mould.
Many of my female clients acknowledge that at some point they have consciously or unconsciously tried to
conform to the ‘leadership blueprint’. One well respected senior partner at a leading strategy consultancy
confided that ‘In my late twenties I worked for one of the most successful names in my industry. He was a
renowned rainmaker, regularly closing multi-million dollar deals. His reputation was legendary and he
would cultivate his CEO relationships to the point where there was an almost unhealthy dependency.
While he had his critics, he had many more clients and fans. He was the most successful consultant in my
field, so I was out to learn everything I could. I mimicked his language, behaviour and style. It worked
pretty well but only up until a point. It never did feel like me and I found it draining to put on an act. Over
time, and with the benefit of seeing other role models, I found the confidence to define my own business
development approach that was based on my principles and my personality. Finding my own authentic
style was the key to my career taking off.’
Of course, it’s difficult for women not to fall into the trap of emulating male leaders. Female role models
are much thinner on the ground. We tend to learn from those leadership examples we experience first in
our families and communities, through the media and then later at work. The leadership blueprint starts
forming early on. Studies of children’s films and TV programmes show an alarmingly disproportionate
representation of males to females in lead roles. Of course you could argue that it’s irrelevant that most of
our cartoon superheroes tend to be male. However it serves establish unconscious norms and expectations
around leadership that are hard to shake, even when as adults we endorse values or quotas to the contrary.
Check in with the business schools and you will see the same pattern. Leadership theory is written from a
male perspective and often informed by a male research base. Academics have struggled to represent a
balanced gender view in their work because this balance simply doesn’t yet exist in most businesses. HBR
case studies can’t help but reinforce gender stereotypes if Richard Branson, Jack Welsh and Steve Jobs are
our business heroes. This costs women dearly though because it means the language, behaviours and
mindsets that underpin our leadership thinking have an inherent gender bias.
So in the workplace, in our business schools and in society generally, our female leaders are accumulating
their leadership learning from watching men in action. It’s a triple whammy against the development of
women leaders and it goes some way to explaining why we are missing women not only at Board level but
across the corporate leadership population at large.
Institutionalising gender bias
Your organisation may proudly declare itself to be a meritocracy and have specific policies to promote
diversity. However, if its leadership model is founded on traditional Human Resources data, then it makes
it harder for other successful ‘more female’ manifestations of leadership to get the same recognition. In
experimental situations where male and female performances are objectively equal, woman are held to
higher standards and their competence is rated lower. You can test this out for yourself. Try closing your
eyes next time you are part of a talent discussion and listen to how the behaviour and track records of the
male candidates are described compared to the female contenders. You won’t need to conduct dialogue
analysis to see who your leadership criteria serve the best. Businesses need to ask whether they are
expecting women to jump through male orientated leadership hoops to make progress.
More recent leadership theories have factored in what are often described as more ‘female leadership
qualities’ such as communication, collaboration and interpersonal skills. Emotional intelligence is a more
recent addition to leadership models and generally seen to be an area where women excel. Nonetheless
while decisiveness, drive and risk taking continue to be viewed as predominantly masculine attributes,
female candidates may be pigeon holed for ‘softer’ roles. Clearly defining leadership qualities in terms of
being male or female isn’t constructive and can ostracise individuals of both genders.
Counting the cost for women
Approaching leadership through this male lens creates problems for women in the long run. It leaves them
working on a development track that encourages them to gloss over who they naturally are and play down
the difference their gender makes to their leadership.
One high flyer in a prestigious asset management business was negatively judged for her tenacity and
competitiveness; essential characteristics for her environment. She commented, ‘I never wanted to be
written off as someone who couldn’t take the heat in business so made sure I adopted the same ‘in your
face’ tactics as my male colleagues when it came to competing for resources or opportunities. However,
the continuum between assertive and aggressive is a tricky one for women to tread. I’ve seen men laugh
off seriously fierce exchanges as simply ‘getting carried away in the heat of the moment’. Being labelled as
an assertive woman attracts a lot of negative judgement here and allows people to dismiss you as being too
emotional. My mentor was very honest in saying that I would never be promoted while people described
me as a ‘challenging woman’. Since then I have learned to hold my ground but in an understated steely
fashion, which is actually much more like me. I generally win the business argument or the client, but you
will never hear me raise my voice.’
A recent overview of more than 100 studies, confirmed that women were rated lower when they adopted
stereotypically masculine authoritative leadership styles. This is sobering news given how many women
spend time trying to fake the male leadership behaviours they believe their organisation will reward.
Another successful executive in a global pharmaceutical reflected on how she used to try to mimic the ‘one
of the boys’ locker room talk when engaging her team and peers. This was the only example she had seen
for inspiring a team. ‘Finding my own leadership voice required me to forge a more personal
communication approach that was based on my values and motivations. Previously I had felt invisible as a
mid level female leader and was tempted to settle for the ‘Mommy track’. Equally, I believed I had much
more I could give and achieve if I could channel my own strengths and establish my own distinctive point of
view. Recent feedback confirms that colleagues now have a better sense of who I am, what I stand for as a
leader and my view on the key issues facing this business. I am no longer trying to borrow someone else’s
leadership voice. Today I am proud to provide an alternative leadership example to the white American
male norm that prevails in this business.’
Less dramatically, many women report that they simply get tired of trying to be the leader their
organisation wants them to be because it feels like borrowing a male voice, set of behaviours or style.
More worryingly this can drive talented women to opt out of the corporate race and switch their ambitions
from the professional to the personal. Again the research supports this need for authenticity, not just from
an energy point of view but from a performance one. The data behind Bill George’s book, ‘True North’
highlights that it may be possible to produce short-term outcomes without being authentic but long-term
consistent results require authentic leadership. Women won’t be successful leaders by trying to imitate
their male counterparts. Before organisations adopt quotas, they need to take the more elementary step
to check they aren’t unconsciously working to a gender biased leadership model.
Break points
Individually, there comes a point when senior women are brought face to face with the limits of the
business’s accepted leadership mantra and are prompted to think again. For some of my clients the turning
point comes when they have the track record, confidence or seniority to flex their company’s leadership
norms with impunity. Others press the pause button when they experience alternative leadership styles
and their eyes are opened to new options. Others hit a performance wall and realise that pushing harder
with the same leadership approach isn’t going to change anything.
Whatever prompts a leader to pause and take stock of their leadership impact is both individual and
complex. But it is at this point that many women realise that they have been trying to live up to a generic
leadership blueprint that doesn’t really work for them. This realisation, if acted on, can act as a rite of
passage enabling women to make a step change in their leadership impact and confidence.
Taking action
Whatever our gender, we need to guard against adopting a development approach that isn’t tailored to our
personal needs, aspirations and realities. If we believe that gender is a formative part of identity, then it
must also be must be a formative part of how we approach leadership.
Some organisations are taking brave steps in this field. They are actively nurturing more diverse leadership
styles and identifying where gender bias might unconsciously be part of their leadership processes or
inherent to how their managers are using these tools.
From an individual perspective, a regular ‘leadership health check’ can help you stay alert to your true
development needs. If it’s been some time since you took stock or you feel frustrated by your lack of
traction, then it could be timely to ask yourself the following questions.
1. What’s not in play when it comes to your leadership?
There may be aspects of your personality and character that you have deliberately filtered out of your
professional persona. We all make efforts to tone down particular behaviours, but often what you selected
out in your twenties may have a mature and valuable application at forty five. For example, tapping into
your genuine personal frustration around an issue in a deliberate and balanced manner may be just the
way to ‘raise the heat’ and force action.
2. Where is the generic approach not working for you?
We can go along with ‘good enough’ for too long without stopping to question whether it truly works for us.
Look at your development plan, the quality and regularity of your feedback, the career conversations you
have with your manager, your executive education to date and your career goals. If they are working and
tailored to propel you to where you want to go, then leave well alone. If not, then how do you take them
up a notch?
3. What’s your next leadership risk?
Sometimes what we need to propel us forward is a step into the unknown. Being in the same area for too
long may reduce your development options. While there is undoubtedly a time and a place for taking risks
in a career, we can generally be more strategic about this. Many leaders have never taken the time to
identify those specific experiences or challenges that would help equip them for their next leadership role,
whether their sights are on the Board or something else. Do you know what these experiences are for you?
Simply articulating them will help you to spot potential opportunities. It will also keep you questioning
whether now is the time to make your next developmental move.
Taking the opportunity to pause, take stock, ditch those ‘borrowed’ leadership behaviours can be incredibly
cathartic. It may be a rite of passage that you never forget or a 10-20% realignment that helps you apply
your leadership energy and strengths in a far more powerful and rewarding way. Recalibrating your
leadership approach to one that fits you is a personal prescription for long-term success. As Warren Bennis
said, ‘Becoming a leader is synonymous with becoming yourself. It is precisely that simple, and it is also
that difficult.’
Kate Lye is a partner with KLI Consulting. She specialises in leadership and organisational development and works as
an executive coach for many FTSE 100 companies.
For more information visit