In the last 36 hours the issue of quotas when applied to gender balance in UK boardrooms has been discussed extensively in the media. The starting point was a debate organised by a right wing Europhobic thinktank which posed the loaded question “Women on Top: Should the EU be imposing gender quotas in the UK?” The subheading behind this event that was organised by the Institute of Economic Affairs was “Should a seat in the boardroom be based on merit…or gender? Should companies make board appointments in the interests of shareholders, customers and employees … or in the name of political correctness? Or is this a necessary way of correcting imbalances in the UK’s senior management structures?” This was not a formal debate as at least one of the speakers who was being asked to speak up on behalf of the benefits of gender balance on boards does not believe in quotas. Claire Gerada, the Chairman of our GPs professional body admitted her view prior to the debate in a tweet. Like Claire I don’t believe that quotas will heal this running sore in our corporate structures and in fact they would actually widen the gap between our current position and where we need to be if the UK is going to achieve greater excellence in business. However we do need change and unlike the UKIP representatives who have been given the oxygen of publicity over the last 24 hours I do think there are some solutions possible.

My reservations regarding quotas have nothing to do those who are being excluded from our boardrooms but are because a corporate board like any other team of people depends on the whole team working together in order to achieve the objectives that the team sets itself. If a team of people feels under pressure to accept a team member they have not chosen for themselves, they will implicitly and eventually explicitly make it clear to the outsider that their presence is not welcome. To be effective in a modern board room  demands skills and experience and anyone in possession of these would not wish to impose their presence on a team that does not want them, no matter how much they might have to offer.

The UKIP response has been articulated by two people. Stuart Wheeler was the most objectionable, suggesting amongst other things that many boards are not suitable places for women. One example he gave was that of a board of an engineering company, based on the fact as he presented it, that 97% of the UK’s engineers are men. Anyone who has ever sat on a board will know that they are cross disciplinary groups which depend on having board members who are not involved in the specialism that the business provides. I have sat on several boards where I have contributed substantially even though my own skills and experience would not enable me to run the organisation on a day by day basis. The other UKIP spokesperson was Diane James, the candidate from the Eastleigh by-election. Dianes objects to quotas for the reason that has been used extensively by the Conservative Party to defend its rejection of all women shortlists. This is the nonsensical argument that those selected under these circumstance would not be chosen on merit as they would not have the opportunity to compete with a man in the same contest. The fact that so many boards are made up wholly or largely of men, yet that mixed boards do exist and perform very well shows that statistically there are already some very unequal contests taking place. This argument also depends on the assumption that each member of a board or Parliamentary Party should be chosen assuming that the body is essentially neutral in its makeup prior to this selection.

No one would object to Solicitors being prioritised in a selection process if there was an acknowledged lack of legal expertise on a corporate board or in a Parliamentary Party. It would instead be seen as a practical way of ensuring that a missing element to the party or board would be met through a strategic decision to focus on the gap that had been identified. The same is true if the gap was of a financial skill set or perhaps of a geographical nature (not usually a problem for a Parliament). The same approach could be applied to the need to create or improve a gender balance. There is substantial evidence that the most effective working groups are those that involve men and women. The effectiveness of our corporate sector is being held back due to a gender bias at board level. Changing this will depend on some pressure or intervention that goes beyond what we have at present. I personally don’t support externally imposed quotas for the reason I have given above. However the status quo is also insufficient and it is clear that Stuart Wheeler does not want change and Diane James has no idea how to achieve it. My suggestion is that like charities, corporate boards should be obliged to explain how their makeup reflects the people the organisation is intended to serve or sell to. Each board should provide a statement in their annual report that explains the make-up of the board and if it intends to change this, what plans they have to do so. This would enable investors to understand at a glance what sort of commitment the board has and over time how effective they have been. As well as addressing the issue of gender on boards it could also encompass other factors, and it would enable people who believe they have something to contribute to corporate boards to know which ones are open and how they will recruit to make the change. The pressure to change is then taken out to shareholders and even customers of the business, and not simply limited to a small group of like minded people who might be a little bit too comfortable with the current arrangements.