每日阅读2021.11.23_what is more ,big companies are increasingly globa-CSDN博客

本文链接：https://blog.csdn.net/qq_47619444/article/details/121505023

Women are half the population but only 15% of board members at big American firms, and l0% in Europe. Companies that fish in only half the talent pool will lose out to those that cast their net more widely. There is also evidence that mixed boards make better decisions.

Mindful of this, European countries are passing laws that would force companies to promote more women to the executive suite. A new French law requires listed firms to reserve 40% of board seats for women by 2017. Norway and Spain have similar laws; Germany is considering one. The European Parliament declared this month that such quotas should be applied throughout the European Union.

There are two main arguments for compulsory quotas. One is that the men who dominate corporate boards are hopelessly sexist: they promote people like themselves and ignore any female talent.

The second argument is more subtle. Talented executives need mentors (导师) to help them climb the ladder. Male directors mentor young men but are reluctant to get friendly with young women, lest the relationship be misinterpreted. Quotas will break this vicious cycle by putting lots of women at the top, who can then offer their sisters a leg up.

There may be something in both arguments, but in most rich countries sexism is no longer the main obstacle to women's careers. Children are. Most women take career breaks to look after them. Many care for elderly relatives, too. One study found that two-thirds of American women had at some point switched from full-time work to part-time or flexible time to balance work and family. Such choices make it harder for women to gain the experience necessary to make it to the very top.

What is more, big companies are increasingly global. Many want a boss who has worked in more than one country. Such foreign postings disrupt families; many women turn them down. And many, anticipating a career break at some point in the future, enter fields where their skills will not quickly become outdated, such as law or human resources. Some lawyers make good chief executives. But firms often want people with financial or operational experience for the top jobs, and these fields are still male-dominated.

Quotas are too blunt a tool for such a tangled problem. The women companies are compelled to put on boards are unlikely to be as useful as those they place there voluntarily. Quotas force firms either to pad their boards with token non-executive directors, or to allocate real power on the basis of sex rather than merit. Enforcing quotas for women has led to large numbers of inexperienced women being appointed to boards, and seriously damaged those firms' performance.