At present there are only 45 women on the boards of the top 100 companies listed on the New Zealand stock exchange - only 8.65 per cent of the available directorships. Former PM Jenny Shipley is amongst a group of high-profile businesswomen who want to change that. They are setting up a women's business group which hopes to mentor and identify women with potential from all walks of life and groom them for the boardrooms of New Zealand and abroad.
The group already as a number of sponsors: IBM, Westpac, NZ Post and Vodafone.
You can read more about the group here.
11 comments:
I feel torn about this sort of thing. On one hand, I want to support women to achieve their aspirations. On the other, I don't think corporations are a particularly good way to structure our society. And on the other hand, structures of power don't become more woman-friendly if women don't participate in them. Then, on the other hand, there's no reason to think that women who make it to the top will do things beneficial to other women (eg Jenny Shipley). That's a lot of hands.
I am going to post anonymously on this one. My boss is a woman and I am sure that the reason this is a good place to work has a lot to do with that, genuine flexibility being one aspect. I would like to see her influencing some of these other organisations at a high level because I am sure that decisions made there affect real lives.
PS "Boss" as in owner/director of the company.
So anon you feel that female bosses are more likely to be genuinely flexible than male bosses? Are you aware of essentialism?
"So anon you feel that female bosses are more likely to be genuinely flexible than male bosses? Are you aware of essentialism?"
It has been my experience that women bosses have been more flexible than male bosses. I don't think this is a function of biology but is the result of their own experience working and caring for children. I haven't had a female boss who hasn't had kids so maybe this is the key thing. Not saying that men can't have this same understanding, I just haven't been managed by one yet who has even though I have had male bosses who are fathers.
So you don't just want to see more women, but more mothers?
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this idea. Women who have chosen not to become mothers shouldn't have to have their careers suffer because of it.
My best bosses have been equally split between male and female, but they've all been family-friendly and understanding of out-of-work life stuff. I don't think you have to have a family to be family-friendly, but it can give you insight into the difficulties of working and raising kids. Mind you, the worse boss I've ever had was a woman with kids ... clearly it's no guarantee a person will be a good employer.
Personally I want to see the best people in the best positions. It doesn't bother me if it is female or male.
"I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this idea. Women who have chosen not to become mothers shouldn't have to have their careers suffer because of it."
Who said anything about discriminating against non-parents??
"Personally I want to see the best people in the best positions. It doesn't bother me if it is female or male."
But how do you define "best"? What I am saying is that the best place I have worked has been run by a family-friendly woman. In this work the employer makes a major investment in training so staff turnover is a real problem so making it possible for women/parents to imagine a long-term career is grat for the business.
Well, if you think mothers are the best bosses, you would naturally favour appointing women with children over women without children, wouldn't you?
"Well, if you think mothers are the best bosses"
erm, I didn't say that; my definitive use of a certain personal pronoun made it clear that this has only been my experience and I am happy to be persuaded otherwise (Anna's comments being powerful in this regard).
This feels a bit like being baited as opposed to a genuine exchange of views so I think I am going to graciously bow out of this discussion :)
Post a Comment