Why quotas don’t work for gender equality (and how to really shrink the wage gap)
By Kathy Kyle Bonomini, Partner
International women’s day approaches on the 8th of March and the anthem is #PressforProgress. We have made progress as a society for women – but is it enough? I support the #metoo or #timesup or #vote100 movements; I am suggesting reframing the conversation. I think we should be doing less pressing and more pushing for pay equity. It begins with how we talk about women and our roles in the workforce.
Ten years ago, there was a call in Europe to promote more women – “golden skirts” they were called – to the board level. If firms didn’t comply, they faced sanctions by the “30% Club”, a group of companies that campaigned on the basis that boards should be composed of that proportion of women, globally.
So, countries that included Norway, Belgium, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Netherlands and Britain implemented quotas to increase women’s participation at the board level. Firms that didn’t comply were fined, banned, dissolved or faced other sanctions.
Have the quotas achieved pay equity for women, or enhanced their lives in any meaningful way? Have quotas ever achieved real equity for the particular group whose position it sought to enhance?
Since 2008, the results of the quota mandate are mixed. Perhaps the most troubling result is the lack of benefit women have experienced at the lower end of the corporate hierarchy. The only women who have seen an increase in their salaries are those swishing their golden skirts at the board level. Not only are women at lower levels are not climbing the career ladder; those women above them don’t seem to be helping them to climb it.
In Norway and Germany, where quotas have been implemented, only seven and six percent of the largest firms have females at the board level, respectively. The US does not have an official quota and has five percent of women in leadership roles. In Canada, women earn 74 cents on the dollar compared to men. In a three-decade longitudinal study conducted by Ottowan researchers, after controlling for gender differences by a variey of factors (industry, occupation, education, age, job tenure, province of residence, marital status, and union status) an 8% wage gap still persists. So are quotas the answer to pay equity from a practical or theoretical perspective? Europe has already demonstrated that women in charge don’t look after other women.
In principle, women should make up 50% of a management board. But they shouldn’t get the (or any) job solely because they are a woman. That should not be the only criteria for a role. When recruiting for a board, 50% of the applicants should be women. But if a woman doesn’t make the cut, then the company – and the woman – should focus on introspection, training and development.
Some will and have argued that women ‘take time off from work’ and therefore do not have the management skills nor the experience at the board level to lead. Many women pay the ‘motherhood penalty’ whether they are mothers or not. And regardless of whether a woman is a mother or not, the fact remains that female-dominated jobs earn less than male-dominated jobs.
Quite simply, research shows that again and again that ‘traditional women’s work’ is simply valued less. The roles women traditionally fill in society are undervalued and are therefore underpaid in our society: carer-givers, parents, nurses, cleaners, teachers, social workers, HR managers, psychologists, PR managers, and counselors.
Business Insider UK, http://uk.businessinsider.com/pink-collar-jobs-dominated-by-women-2015-2
The Economist argues that if men read ‘traditional’ women’s subjects and integrated themselves fully into women’s work, and women integrated into men’s work, the gender pay gap would shrink. It is pretty simple, really.
No quotas, no ‘golden skirts’ LINGO
I think the solution begins with men – and women – ending the practice of calling women ‘golden skirts’. By not really tackling gender parity issues head-on but by undertaking an exercise of ticking a box for a few select females who are already economically advantaged, we have promoted a few at the detriment of the many. Some suit – male or female – but a suit nonetheless – in a board room probably came up with the term ‘golden skirt’. It doesn’t solve the gender parity issue and it is demeaning. It also perpetuates continued pay disparities.
We must eliminate the ‘golden skirt’ terminology (and mentality) and reframe the conversation. This all boils down to semiotics and how our society has and continues to define the roles we should play and be paid to play. And how we buy into it.
We must demand (persuade, lobby, vote) that employers provide men with the same paternity options that women have (some American women have no maternity leave at all, though some states and corporations like Facebook and Netflix have generous packages). New parents or adoptive parents should not have to sacrifice their family for their career (or vice versa). Returning to work should be a positive experience; in order to provide women and men with the best choices to do what is best for them so that no one has to pay a ‘motherhood penalty’. See how your country rates here.
We must move beyond hashtags and move to action. We must mentor young people (regardless of sex or gender) in ‘non-traditional’ roles and encourage them to take on a subject or an internship regardless of the social norms associated with it.
Collectively we must push back, not just #PressforProgress. We should push, and hard. Everyone benefits, not only women. We should all go ahead and give it a shove. On international women’s day and every day. #nogoldenskirts #PushForProgress
