Women and the WorkplaceAN EXECUTIVE APPOINTMENTS SPECIAL FOCUS www.ft.com/recruit | twitter.com/FTCareerMgmt

‘Glacial’ rateof progressbrings callsfor quotas

No one wants quotas. In anideal world, equality wouldcome naturally. Howeverthere are certain points in

history when they are, as some advo-cates put it, “a necessary evil”.

When Jane Somerville became amedical student at Guy’s teachinghospital in the early 1950s, she waspart of the first wave of female stu-dents admitted under a government-enforced 9 per cent quota.

She is now a renowned cardiologist,emeritus professor, and founder of theWorld Congress of Paediatric Cardiol-ogy. During her appearance on theRadio 4 programme Desert IslandDiscs, she recalled a senior physicianwho would swear at her as she passedby. Without a legal quota she wouldnot have been given a place, let alonegone on to make her breakthroughs inpaediatric cardiology.

Today, quotas governing the repre-sentation of women in the boardroomare being held in reserve in case vol-untary action proves ineffective.When Lord Davies concluded in hisreport of 2011 that quotas for womenat board level were not necessary, heset a voluntary minimum target of 25per cent for FTSE 100 boards by 2015.

However, the proportion of womenon FTSE 100 boards has been stuck atabout 17.4 per cent since August 2012.At current rates, Lord Davies’s 25 percent target will be missed.

Facing a similar lack of progress,some countries have legislated. Bel-gium, Italy and the Netherlands haveset quotas at 30 per cent; and Franceand Norway have gone for 40 per cent– France by 2017, with Norway havingachieved its target in 2009.

The European Commission recentlyproposed an EU-wide gender quota of40 per cent. It was rejected in its ini-tial form, but could still become law.

“Six years ago, I was absolutely antiquotas,” says Debbie White, UK andIreland chief executive for Sodexo, theoutsourcing provider. “But in sixyears, despite everything that LordDavies tried to do, I don’t thinkenough change has happened.

“What gets measured gets done, andat this point we need something meas-urable and systematic that will forceemployers, boards and chairmen tolook at what is done.”

Sodexo has met the goal of 25 percent well ahead of schedule, but MsWhite believes other companies willnot, unless it is made a priority.

Some opposed to quotas argue thatthere are not enough prospectivefemale candidates for senior positions,so promoting them to boards wouldnot be on merit – and no business-woman would want to be appointedsimply to meet a quota.

They also say that gender inequal-ity begins below executive levels,when women are overtaken by men atthe child-rearing stage. Tinkering atboard level does nothing to changethat, opponents to quotas argue.

Some even question the need forequal numbers of women and men atthe top of organisations, saying busi-nesses run well enough without them.

“When our chief executive set our25 per cent target three or four years

ago, I thought that we’d never getthere,” admits Ms White. “But we did.On my board of 11 there are now fivewomen.

“There is fantastic talent out there.This is not about a shortage of talent,this is about making sure that theprocesses and procedures that supportthe appointment are right.”

At Sodexo, this has included insist-ing on an equal gender balanceamong candidates at both board andmanagement level. This might meanhuman resources departments and

headhunters having to work harder –which is why it doesn’t happen auto-matically, says Ms White.

Proponents of quotas say they neednot run counter to meritocratic princi-ples. For example, the EU proposalscall for priority to be given to womenonly when there is “equal qualifica-tion” for the role. Their aim is not toexclude more qualified males but toensure balanced lists of equally quali-fied candidates.

In France, where legislation callsfor 20 per cent of board members to befemale by 2014 and 40 per cent by2017, Sophie Stabile, global chieffinancial officer at Accor hotel group,argues: “Meritocracy is not an issue.We are talking about women whohave the same qualifications as menbeing noticed.

“The business world is a male worldand as long as there is no obligationto promote women, men tend to pro-mote their peers.”

Do executive search firms agree?Yes, says Jane Kirk at ArmstrongCraven: “Reaching the qualifiedwomen might mean going out of thesector, or even out of the country, butit stops you recruiting from within anetwork – typically of middle-agedwhite men. Mixed selection panelsalso stop people just going for the

person they are more comfortablewith.”

She says not everyone is convincedthat the men being appointed are thebest. “They are the best ones thatthey know,” she says.

Those supporting quotas concedethat this is often a case of uncon-scious bias, rather than direct dis-crimination: with most business lead-ers being men, studies find that evenfemale recruiters show unconsciousbias in favour of male candidates overwomen.

“There is quite a lot of unconsciousbias in job descriptions and role com-petencies, too,” says Ms White. “Weneed to ensure that organisationsreview those processes.”

But do board quotas address thewider complaint that gender inequal-ity extends well beyond the board-room? Ms White says it “sends a mes-sage”, and creates role models andachievable aspirations – the board isthe most visible statement of the waya company is run and its values.

“Quotas,” says Ms Stabile, “ensurethe promotion of women who werenot necessarily on the radar – womenwho are just as qualified and asinvolved in the business as a man.”

More females at the top should alsospark action on gender equality, she

says. For most, this means greateraccess to flexible working, mentoringand coaching, especially at the child-rearing stages of women’s careers.

Finally, proponents of quotas stressthe business case. “This is a talentissue, a business issue, it’s not awoman’s issue,” argues Ms Kirk.“Every company is worried about howto manage its talent to get a greaterinternal pipeline – and that comesdown to assessing people properly andassessing roles properly. Currentlyit’s done so poorly.”

The Davies Report itself said: “Thisis not just a gender numbers game. Itis about the richness of the board as awhole...able to consider issues in arounded, holistic way and offer anattention to detail not seen on all-male boards which often think thesame way.”

Lord Davies believed a voluntarytarget would be the solution. ButStephanie Dale, a partner at Stevens& Bolton law firm, says: “You onlyneed to look at the recent history ofgender equality to know that volun-tary measures do little to change thesituation.

“It took legislation such as the SexDiscrimination Act and the Equal PayAct in the 1970s to deliver real changefor women in the workplace.”

Tim Smedley looks at thecase in favour of the‘necessary evil’ of forcingcompany boards toappoint more women

Not a numbers game: Lord Davies put his faith in voluntary action when writing his 2011 report on women on boards. But his targets are being missed Rosie Hallam

Thursday September 19 2013

On other pages

Against quotas ‘Voluntary is best’say supporters of targets Page 5

Dress codes Is the suit fading as apower symbol for men? Page 5

Childcare Numbers fail to add upwhen women return to work Page 6

Comment Why a ‘pipeline of womenleaders’ is not the answer Page 6

Men Could gender equality liberate‘the trapped male’? Page 7

2 ★ FINANCIAL TIMES THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 19 2013

Supporters of targets say ‘voluntary is best’

Heather Jackson has made acareer boosting the pres-ence of women in theboardroom and she is quite

clear that quotas are not the answer.“You can’t right a wrong overnight

and you can’t blame the leadership oftoday – but of 15 years ago,” she says.“This isn’t a government issue but abusiness issue and companies are des-perate to find out what they can do.We need patience, not platitudes.”

Ms Jackson is chief executive of AnInspirational Journey, which works inpartnership with RBS, the bank, toaddress the “imbalance of talent thatexists at the top of corporate Britain”.The company has expanded by 280 percent in the past six months alone.“That tells me momentum hasstarted,” she says.

It is almost three years since formergovernment minister Lord Daviesurged the UK’s biggest companies toincrease the percentage of women attheir board tables to 25 per cent by2015.

He stopped short of imposing quotas– unless voluntary measures fail – andmost business leaders remain infavour of targets, not quotas. Somesay quotas would discriminate against“superior candidates”, arguing thatgradual improvements to the pipelineof female talent and natural progressprovide a more sustainable and holis-tic solution.

While many business leadersacknowledge that progress has been“glacial”, small improvements arepounced on. Last year, 47 per cent offirst-time appointments to FTSE 350boards were women, up from 11 percent in 2007, says Ms Jackson.

Karen Gill, co-founder of the Every-woman organisation for women inbusiness, points to Norway, wherequotas were introduced requiring aminimum of 40 per cent of each gen-der in the boardroom. She argues ithas failed so far to create a pipeline tosustain women’s progress.

“What’s really interesting is thatI’ve never met anyone for quotas inthe UK and we have 20,000 people inour community covering all the topechelons,” she says. “If we’ve got themessage from men and women sayingquotas are not a good idea, thenimposing them would be silly.”

Gender targets, meanwhile, are sim-ply good management for any com-pany to adopt, says Fiona Hathorn,managing director of Women onBoards UK, a women’s networkingorganisation,

“More than ever, companies in allsectors need new thinking, new bloodand new people with different experi-ences,” she says. “Many of them couldget this by simply appointing a fewmore women into top roles. Not reallyrocket science, but many women arestarting to think it might be easier toget to the moon.”

A business-led approach in which acompany clearly states where it wantsto be at all levels of the organisationis PwC’s strategy, says Sarah Church-man, head of diversity and well-beingat the professional services firm.

“We want the local leadership to

feel in control but also to challengeassumptions. For example, all sorts ofassumptions are made if a womangoes on maternity leave about herflexibility or desire to travel, and sup-port has to given through line manag-ers,” she says.

While the UK has been more resist-ant than other European countrieswhen it comes to government inter-vention, there is even more reluctanceto adopt regulatory change in the US.

Anne Lim O’Brien is an influentialheadhunter and the New York-basedvice-chairman of Heidrick & Strug-gles. While she believes it could take

“decades” for women to achieve par-ity, she remains against quotas. “Ifyou put in hard quotas, it wouldundermine those who have workedvery hard,” she says.

Quotas would also pose a threat tothe ability of boards to undertaketheir fiduciary duties in not taking onundue risk if there is not a big enoughpool of qualified women directors tochoose from. “In reality, the fewwomen there are get very quicklysnapped up, so there is a pipelineissue,” she says.

Quotas are “a sledgehammer of lastresort”, according to Beth Brooke, glo-

bal vice chairman for public policyand global sponsor of diversity andinclusiveness at EY, the professionalservices firm, in Washington.

“Private sector leadership is theway to go but that means transpar-ency,” she says.

“Progress in the US has been glacialnot just for women but for diversityin general. The private sector needs tolead and to be held accountable.” Shealso highlights the need for “authen-tic” leadership.

Fiona O’Hara, human capital anddiversity Lead for Accenture in theUK and Ireland, says the consultancyfirm aims for a “holistic” approachbecause quotas are seen as “discrimi-natory and questionable in terms ofsustainability and success”.

“There’s been a glacial pace ofchange since the Davies report andwe’re not satisfied with that, so we tryto provide some accelerators,” shesays. These include targets, trainingin bias awareness, and sponsorship.

Ms Jackson, of An InspirationalJourney, says that in the three yearssince the Davies report, more compa-nies have grown aware of the need tosupport and strengthen women andare looking into how to do it.

But real results will come from awholesale change in culture, startingwith education at an early age, andfrom companies setting their own tar-gets. “When companies set targets,what gets measured gets done andleads to realistic aims,” she says.

Righting wrongs: Heather Jackson says gender balance is a business issue and is calling for ‘patience, not platitudes’

Women and the Workplace

Quotas: the case againstSharmila Devi talks towomen who are convincedthat gradual progress anda growing momentum willdeliver sustainable change

Dress codes Is the suit and tie fading as a power symbol for men?

Eyebrows were raised around the 100-year-old Institute of Directors, thebusiness club with pride of place inLondon’s smart Pall Mall, when itannounced a relaxation of its “dresscode” for a three-month trial period,writes Dina Medland.

From July to September, suits andties could be left in the wardrobe, withits website suggesting members “makethe decision on what they wouldnormally wear to do business, as longas it is not deemed indecent. They arepermitted to wear jeans, T-shirts, shortsand all variants of footwear.”

The Institute has a reputation forbeing old-fashioned but South African-born Simon Walker, its new director-general, is trying to make changes –with mixed views among its members.It remains to be seen whether it willrelax its rules on dress on a permanentbasis but ideas about business attireare changing.

It raises the question of whether thebusiness suit and tie will remain apower symbol for men – and if not,what are the implications for women?

“Suits used to be the uniforms ofleaders in the City banking sector, butthe notion that a man’s suit is adefinition of authority is a bit dated,”says Emer Timmons, president of BTGlobal Services UK.

She says the suit is “indicative of acommand-and-control culture which isnot appropriate for knowledge-basedindustries like BT.”

Dale Stafford, a successfulbusinesswoman who runs The PrincipleDepartment, a business advisory firm,says: “Suits are so linked to thecorporate banking world, a shorthandfor things that are not trustworthy, witheverything in a state of flux since thefinancial crisis. The business suit isunder fire: does it now stand forruthless capitalism and liars?”

Clearly “business attire” variesaccording to industry sector, withbanking and technology each lookingvery different. But as women look forequal treatment and to progress withinthe business world, what their dresscode should be is open tointerpretation.

“Male business suits are often auniform to hide behind and can makeyou anonymous. What you wear is justa reflection of your individual flair – it isno longer indicative of your status,”argues Ms Timmons.

This might give women an edge inbeing able to make more of astatement by their choice of attire: butthe trick lies in making an impression,rather than being remembered for whatyou are wearing.

“You only have to look at seniorwomen to work out that their unwrittendress code is the tailored look – itinvolves an element of decorum,” says

Vanda Murray, a businesswoman andnon-executive director. “Women havemore choices and can be moreindividualistic, but it’s also a lot easierfor women to get it wrong. At worst aman may not refresh his look asfashions change, but it’s harder forthem to make a mistake.

“The problem is that people caremore about what women wear, and themedia focuses on how she looks andwhat she wore, rather than what shesaid and did.”

Ms Timmons believes that rather thanemulating men in settling for a uniform,women should apply their ownapproach and “reflect their own valuesand personality in what they wear”.

Ms Stafford adds: “What you wear ispart of your branding. Women are thevisually dominant species – you have todecide the message you want tocommunicate.”

Ken Olisa, chairman of Restoration

Partners, a merchant bank, alwayswears a suit and colourful bow tie. Hesays: “Appearance in general anddress in particular play a vital role inthe ‘first impressions’ phase ofbuilding a relationship.

“However, only a fool would decidewhether or not to do business withsomeone based on a first impressionand no amount of sharp dressing cansubstitute for incompetence orunethical behaviour.

“A smartly dressed person is tellingthe world that they care about theirappearance, but business successcorrelates with ability and attitude notapparel.”

Ms Timmons agrees: “Don’t let whatyou wear overshadow what you aretrying to deliver. All the talk of ‘suits’gives me a fever. These days, peopleare far more interested in thetechnology you hold, not what youwear.”Uniform: the suit is called ‘dated’

FINANCIAL TIMES THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 19 2013 ★ 3

Numbers failto add upwhen mothersreturn to work

Thoughts of babies and smallchildren under the age of fourbring a smile to the faces ofmost people. The bad news is

that the cost of childcare is commonlycited by women as a barrier to pro-gressing into senior roles.

Ruby McGregor-Smith, chief execu-tive of Mitie Group, the outsourcingcompany, and chairman of the gov-ernment’s Women’s Business Council,says: “There are 2.4m women notworking who want to work, and morethan 1.3m women who want to workmore hours. Yet the cost of childcarein England is among the most costlyin Europe.

“It is a big barrier for women whowant to return to work or work longerhours after having children. Makingquality childcare accessible andaffordable is a hugely important partof this.”

According to a recent report pre-pared for the government by the coun-cil, in the past four years the averagecost of a nursery place has risen by 23per cent. During that time, the aver-age full-time wage has risen by 2.5 percent, and the average part-time wagehas risen by just 0.3 per cent. Parentslooking for childcare today say it isexpensive and hard to access – just asthey did a decade ago – while provid-ers report under-occupancy in someregions and low profits.

Jennie Johnson, founder and chiefexecutive of Kids Allowed, the award-winning chain of nurseries near Man-

chester, has experienced childcarefrom several perspectives. Ten yearsago and working full time as a salesdirector, she had a child about to startschool, was expecting another, andwas looking to go back to work.

“I was very unhappy about what Isaw when looking for childcare. Younever want to say ‘that will have todo’.

“So I tried using informal childcarewith friends, relatives and my gran –and that didn’t work either,” she says.

It prompted Ms Johnson to try andmake it work by creating childcareherself. “My three-year-old is now acustomer,” she says.

But despite winning personal andprofessional accolades, Ms Johnson’ssocial conscience means she remainsunhappy. “I come from a strong work-ing class background. When I firstthought of Kids Allowed, I wantedaffordable high quality childcare.

“But the business plan didn’t work,so it had to be at the expensive end ofaffordability. It doesn’t sit well thatthis is a service that most people frommy background can’t afford.”

She describes Kids Allowed clientsas: “Typically professional workingfamilies of whom not all are affluent.”Charges are roughly £50 a day.

Talking about other resources avail-able to parents, she says: “There isnothing to support parents when achild is one year old.

“Allegedly there is governmentfunding available for three to four-year-olds for 15 hours of childcare aweek but it is at something like £3.70an hour and it costs us far more thanthat to deliver.

“They are rolling out means-testedfunding for two-year-olds but the sec-tor is very nervous.”

Recent moves by the government’sChildcare Commission for more tax-free childcare should be welcomed,says Ms McGregor-Smith. But sheadds: “I would very much like to seethis go even further, when the eco-nomic climate allows. Ultimately, I’d

like to see tax breaks for childcareacross the board.” Other resourcesavailable to parents include childcarevouchers, but not all employers pro-vide them.

Ms Johnson also points out thatgovernment funding for childcare

does not distinguish between the“church hall nursery” and profes-sional nurseries such as Kids Allowed,where there is a qualified teacherpresent and the aim is to be as flexi-ble as possible in meeting parentalneeds.

“That flexibility comes at a price,”says Ms Johnson. “Babies need cud-dles and you can’t cut corners.”

For some women, the lack of afford-able quality childcare leads to themstepping out of the workforce. Othersseek to work flexibly, perhaps by run-ning their own businesses.

Flexible working is championed bythe Women’s Business Council report,which says that in 1998 it was offeredby 27 per cent of employers – and by50 per cent of employers in 2012.

But for those women leaving theworkforce to provide their own child-care, the barriers to returning canseem insurmountable.

Brenda Trenowden, managing direc-tor at BNY Mellon, is a Canadian whowas starting a City career in Londonmore than a decade ago. She had to beat work before 7am and, unable tofind suitable childcare, decided to hirea nanny.

“We couldn’t believe it,” she says.

“Almost all of my husband’s after-taxincome as a teacher was going to thenanny.

“We just couldn’t understand whywe were paying all our money to astranger to look after our child.”

Their answer was for Mr Trenowdento give up his career to provide child-care. “We are very lucky because Iearn enough and we can do it thisway, and it has worked for us. But itwould have been nice to feel therewerre other options,” Ms Trenowdensays.

Her husband, now 51, is occasion-ally asked by the mothers waiting atthe school gate when he is going backto work, she says.

“Childcare in the UK is just so veryexpensive, especially when you lookat the hours available – even longschool holidays are a real issue. Whenyoung women come and ask me foradvice now it’s very hard to knowwhat to tell them to do.”

Work and play: the lack of affordable quality childcare leads some women to leave the workforce Alamy

‘Childcare is just so veryexpensive. When youngwomen ask me for advicenow it’s very hard to knowwhat to tell them to do’

Women and the Workplace

OpinionKathryn Bishop

There has been much talk of theneed to create a “pipeline” of womenready to become leaders in business.We certainly need more womenleaders but I’m not sure that apipeline is the single best answer.

Some commentators claim womenmiss out on senior roles becausethey don’t behave like men aimingfor the same positions. They don’tpush themselves forward; they don’task for the resources they need; theyare too willing to share credit – andso they are too easily overlooked byfirms using traditional criteria.

But the reason everyone wantsmore women at the top in businessis because they want diversity –people who think and act differently.

We don’t need women leaders whoare just more decorative versions ofmen. We need different types ofleaders who will introduce differentattitudes and behaviours at the topof organisations, and cause them totrickle throughout the economy.

So what should we do? First,introduce leadership developmentspecifically for women that helpsthem to feel confident in theirstrengths and to develop their ownstyles. The reason Oxford Universityhas created a women-only leadershipexecutive education programme is totake gender out of the equation.

This allows a purposeful explorationof diversity, and encourages them tolearn from each other’s styles –rather than pitting them against“masculine” models of leadership.

Meanwhile, companies that areserious about diversity need to thinkmore creatively about how to recruitwomen to senior positions. Not allthe talented women who drop out ofthe high-performance rat-race stopworking. Some join smaller, moreflexible, organisations, perhaps indifferent sectors, or set up their ownbusinesses. They are still buildingtheir experience and honing theirtalents: companies need to workharder to tempt them back.

We must also be open to thechanges they will want to make. Asuccessful consultant who hasworked flexibly yet effectively isunlikely to change her outlook andarrangements in order to slot backinto the constraints of traditionalcorporate life. She will want to dothings differently, not only for herselfbut for others in the organisation.

Kathryn Bishop is associate fellow atthe Saïd Business School at theUniversity of Oxford, and is co-director of its Women TransformingLeadership programme.

ChildcareDina Medland looks athow the cost of nanniesand nurseries creates abarrier that prevents manywomen resuming a careerafter starting a family

4 ★ FINANCIAL TIMES THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 19 2013

Could genderequalityliberate ‘thetrapped male’?

It is too easily forgotten amid thecalls for female equality that thegender debate is not necessarilyjust about women. A righting of

workplace opportunities could alsoaffect men, too.

As Sue O’Brien, chief executive ofNorman Broadbent, the executivesearch firm, puts it: “There are twosides to equality. There is the femaleside and there is the male side, other-wise it isn’t equality is it?”

She sees a need to liberate thedemographic segment that mightappear to have it all – the 50-some-thing males, who in reality becomestuck in a rut of office life, workinglate, and wilting under the pressure ofresponsibilities at work and beyond.

Adam Riccoboni, co-founder of MBA& Company, an online consultancy,says: “The social expectation thatmen must financially provide has leftthem trapped in the workplace bytheir financial responsibilities to theirfamilies, in the same way that womenhave historically been trapped athome with children and housework.

“If women were encouraged intomanagement positions – on equal paywith their male peers – then there isno reason why they shouldn’t becomebreadwinners, thus liberating 50-something male senior managers.Taking steps to correct the imbalancewill not only give women a fairerchance in business, it will also givemen greater freedom of choice.”

Monica Parker, head of workplacestrategy at Morgan Lovell, a consul-tancy, says current gender roles canharm men. “Men are less likely to

admit to, or seek help for, mentalhealth issues and are less resilientthan their female counterparts atdealing with stress-related illnesses.This is a particular issue in male-dominated City jobs.”

As firms seek to make work morepalatable to younger workers andwomen with caring responsibilitiesthrough flexible and part-time work-ing, this could benefit older maleworkers too.

Charlotte Sweeney, director of Char-lotte Sweeney Associates, a consul-tancy firm, and a member of theDepartment of Business, Innovationand Skills’ external equalities board,believes more and more men want towork differently.

“But they feel flexible working isgeared towards women and childcarerather than people making choicesabout how work fits into their life as awhole,” she says. “This is how it is‘sold’ in many companies. But I’msure more men would prefer to workdifferently, spend more time at homeor have control of their time.”

Ms O’Brien agrees there is a nega-tive association with flexible or part-

time working, especially among Cityworkers. “It tends to be seen as afemale opportunity. If the culture issuch that you have a senior male fig-ure driven to carry on performing

with the same output and input of a25-year-old, of course there is going tobe a negative association with anyonethat gets offered the opportunity towork more flexibly. But giving them a

break from doing that is actuallysomething that should be embraced.”

David Cliff was a legal executiveand an insurance broker before he leftto run Gedanken, his own businesscoaching company in 2006, when hewas 48. He feels the 50s are an agewhen “a lot of men still see them-selves as the breadwinners, but theyalso take a very strong view ofresponsibility to others.

“Some people in their 50s don’twant the 60-hour week and genuinelywant to let go of some of their workethic. Historically, part-time work hasbeen dominated by women, but a shiftmay well appeal to many men.”

Although his move to self-employ-ment increased his hours rather thanreduce them, he believes it has beenoutweighed by gaining freedom andcontrol.

Ms O’Brien says Norman Broadbentoffers all its partners flexible working.She argues that an element of free-dom and control over working hoursincreases output.

“People who want to work on a

reduced week are much more focusedwhen they are working. They areappreciative of the flexibility theyhave in their life so are very focusedon delivery.”

She says men have long wantedsuch opportunities, but have not beenable to call it “flexible” or “part-time”because of the negative connotations.Instead, they say they are “followinga portfolio career”, she says.

Mr Riccoboni has also noticed that“freelance” – once a code term for“between jobs” or “recently maderedundant” – is fast becoming a popu-lar flexible working option.

Such changes are inevitable, saysMs O’Brien, as retirement ageschange and people stay in worklonger.

She adds: “If bosses are able to workin a flexible way themselves, theytend not to look at presenteeism foreveryone else. But who’s going to bethe first partner to step forward in alaw firm and say ‘I want to do this ona three-day week’? It has to start atthe top.”

Out of a rut: Charlotte Sweeney says men tend to see flexible working as being geared more towards women and childcare

Women and the Workplace

Impact on menTim Smedley reports onthe wider potentialbenefits of having morewomen in senior roles

Ready for the board Two organisations provide lists of qualified candidates

More than 2,700 women from aroundthe world have so far joined the GlobalBoard Ready Women group onLinkedIn, writes Peter Whitehead.

Launched in October last year andadministered by the FT Non-ExecutiveDirectors’ Club, the list is aimed atproviding search firms and thosemaking board appointments with achoice of board-qualified women forcompanies around the world.

To join the group, members eitherhave to be recommended or provide aCV and references. They have to meetstrict criteria and ensure their profilesare kept up-to-date so that companiesand recruiters can easily identify those

matching their requirements andcontact them directly.

Before applying to join the group,women should have at least five years’experience in a senior leadership,professional, academic orentrepreneurial role.

●Another source of female candidatesfor chairmen and recruiters to considerwhen seeking board members is the“100 Women to Watch” list compiledby Cranfield School of Management,with support from search firmSapphire Partners.

The list includes women who arecurrently on the executive committees

of FTSE listed companies, working inmajor financial institutions orprofessional service firms, or in seniorexecutive roles in large charitableorganisations and who are consideredready for a board position.

The Cranfield International Centre forWomen Leaders has produced thisannual list since 2009.

Kate Grussing, managing director ofSapphire Partners, says: “There arestill headhunters and chairmen sayingthey have looked for new candidatesand that there is just no one out there.We know this is not true and thecalibre of the women on the ‘watch’list speaks volumes.”