I read a recent article documenting that the EU is requiring 40% Women on their company’s boards. Having a diverse set of views and opinions is good for a company rather than cronyism that could lead to all kinds of incestual behavior, which many can find evidence of.
The diversity should come from talent and competence rather than by law or Force Majeure from induced shame. Without this step, the forced diversity could overlook a true leader or worse, pick those who could lead a company in the wrong direction, or be an empty suit (or dress).
The EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding is proposing to introduce legislation at commission level to force private companies with over 250 employees or who are listed on the stock exchange to have at least 40% women making up their boards.
To try and tell a private company who are the real creators of wealth how the should administer themselves is a step too far and one that could prove detrimental for Europe; particularly if companies decide to headquarter themselves elsewhere.
Listening to RTE News at One on the Radio earlier they were interviewing some woman (can’t recall her name) who was in favor of this, and wait for it, because “men focus too much on the bottom line”! The absolute cheek of them, to actually think a company should maximise it profits
Gender quotas will not help Europe’s boardrooms, what they will do is ensure that women are appointed to boards who are currently not viewed as capable of running a company. This can only be bad for private companies in the long run, if in fact they can any longer be called private if the EU is dictating who should run them.
WE’VE BEEN DOWN THIS PATH BEFORE
I’ve witnessed the intrusion of diversity and have observed it’s successes and failures. Many (of all minorities) have had doors opened to them that were previously closed. It has turned out many leaders other than the old boys Ivy league club which created a glass ceiling.
Unfortunately, it has promoted unqualified people to positions to fill quota’s over the more qualified candidate.
At one company I worked for, the VP of HR killed a commercial for our company because the actors were eating lasagna. Why is this bad, because they were African-American and stated that it was not a meal they would eat. Another female VP of Marketing is avoided like the plague because of her terroristic behavior towards employees. She also routinely would promote “not men” because of their gender. A typical male executive would have been fired for this. These are but a couple of examples, but the list of abuses goes on because they can lean on diversity, but that belies the point of hiring the best candidate for the job rather than filling a quota