I was fortunate enough to attend the Women, Research and Enterprise Forum. An impressive gathering of local businesswomen and female researchers, marking National Women & Enterprise Day. We listened to Erika Watson, of WEETU and Prowess fame; Erika asked the question - ‘Was the financial crises manmade?’
Erika has an MBE in deference to her contribution to enterprise and equality promotion and a wealth of knowledge at her fingertips.
Erika suggested that we take a step back and consider how differing gender values affect our behaviour at work. A good example would be to visualize a City Trader for instance - immediately you are thinking; male, suit, high octane-testosterone fuelled - ambitious and impatient. Contrast that with the image of an Earth Mother; whose main focus is the well being of others, the home and the long term well-being of her family.
Most of us are a mixture of both; I know there are days when my behaviour resembles more of a Trader than a Nurturer, but it is fact that the sexes have recogniseable gender traits.
The current fiscal fiasco was undeniably orchestrated by the very masculine measure of achievement that is; the fast acquisition of economic growth - at any cost. It is now commonly accepted that the plan, if indeed there was one, lacked sustainability.
Experts, including Erika argue that the solution can be found in balance; the employment, quite literally of opposites; the yin and yang of the working world, that is the different values brought to the workplace by men and women. However, before we can start to redress the problem we have to see a cultural change. A complete move away from the current way of thinking that tolerates inequality.
By way of example, a recent financial services inquiry revealed that in the City of London women earn 55% less than their male counterparts - the largest pay gap of any UK industry. Alarmingly the pay difference is as applicable to newly appointed females - as to those who have been there a while.
Moreover, of the bonuses paid - the rights and wrongs of which is a separate debate - women receive just one fifth of that ‘trousered’ by their male colleagues.
Some countries have woken up to the fact that long term ‘finance with feminine values’ is the way forward. Iceland for instance has more women in significant financial roles than anywhere else in the world. They recognise that the employment of overtly feminine values will work to recover the country’s shattered finances and lead to a balanced economy. The real difference is that the focus in Iceland is ‘how’, rather than ‘whether a feminine approach can help the recovery.
Another enlightened country is Norway who introduced it’s own ground breaking legislature that by 2008; 40% of all company board members would be female. Initially the initiative was to be voluntary and private firms were given until July 2005 to increase female board representation. When the response was lack lustre the government took the bull by the horns and simply introduced legislation that ensured compliance; the penalties for noncompliance were severe: firms were penalised with fines, then deregistration from the Oslo Stock Exchange and finally dissolution. Karita Bekkemellem, Norway’s Minister for Children and Equality, stated, “The government’s decision is to see to it that women will have a place where the power is, where leadership takes place in this society.”
Let’s be clear, the driver behind these initiatives is economical, not political. Ernst & Young recently released a report, highlighting the significant and proven contributions women make toward economic growth, concluding:
“The crisis makes us focus and look at first principles: the important role women play in advancing economic opportunities and how critical it is for a country’s prosperity and economic growth to invest in women and ensure they’ve got a level playing field. We have studies and empirical data that support this point, but often don’t have the will to do what needs to be done. “
I rest my case. M-J
