Sector News

Gender quotas don’t help businesses — they don’t even help women

July 18, 2016
Diversity & Inclusion

The government of Ontario recently announced gender quotas for provincial boards. It wants private companies to follow its lead over the next five years. This, we are told, will not only help women, it will improve company performance. Is this actually true?

A book about the Nordic experience released in May 2016 punctures those hopes and should be cause for reconsidering Ontario’s path. The Nordic Gender Equality Paradox by Nima Sanandaji assesses gender-equality programs and plans in Iceland, Finland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Specifically in Norway, the evidence from studying quotas show neutral or negative results, both for women’s advancement and company performance — the two areas we are told will most obviously benefit.

What we learn from Sanandaji’s research is that the effects of quotas in Norway were far from positive. Norway introduced quotas requiring 40 per cent of board members of public companies to be women in 2003. This became mandatory for all companies in 2006. Of 500 companies affected, about 100 made “difficult but legal” changes in corporate structure to circumvent the new legislation. Share prices, he writes, dropped 3.5 per cent after the quota legislation was announced. More to the point, quotas had little to no effect on women’s pay, or women choosing to enter the business world.

Why would investors expect gender quotes to decrease the value of firms? Fortunately, the conclusion of scholars is that this is not because women can’t manage business well, but because, thanks to the pressure of the quotas, younger and therefore less experienced women needed to be quickly promoted. Authors of one study conclude “the quota led to younger and less experienced boards, increases in leverage and acquisitions, and deterioration in operating performance.”

When women reach the top and are on boards because they excel, it does indeed improve performance. This is not due to gender or diversity, but rather, excellence. Another Danish study examined 2,500 firms over eight years, finding that hiring women did indeed improve firms’ performance. Yet the conclusion was still that “the positive effects of women in top management depend(s) on the qualifications of female top managers.” If quotas force hiring women on a short timeframe, and as a result, the wrong women are chosen, there is reason to be concerned that quotas will give the push for gender parity a bad reputation.

Neither did the placement of women on boards actually advance women more broadly. In Norway, there was no significant change in the gender wage gap, no greater enrolment of women in business programs and little evidence of widespread change in women’s decisions around marriage and reproduction. As late as 2015, Norway had no female CEOs, causing one Swedish expert on gender equity to comment that the lack of movement post-quotas suggests that the “Norwegian snowball doesn’t roll.”

In international surveys about national values, Nordic countries consistently exhibit the most female-friendly attitudes. Yet they score below the U.S., the U.K., Ireland, Canada and Australia for women in senior management; Norway, Finland and Denmark have some of the lowest proportions of women in management at all (Canada beats all Nordic countries on this, save for Iceland) and finally, have some of the most gender-segregated labour markets in the world.

Sanandaji’s conclusion is that quotas are window dressing. There are other policies he points to as being more effective and less intrusive for ensuring women can get to the top. For example, women are apparently more profoundly affected by higher taxes. When faced with high taxes, men keep working, says Sanandaji, but women choose not to. He also highlights how generous welfare-state benefits in the form of both payments to families and free child care keep women home. Both keep taxes high so that women have a harder time paying for the additional services that would free up the time to really excel in the business world.

At the end of the day, when governments discuss getting more women into management and on boards, they are making the same assumption: that talented women will indeed hit a glass ceiling simply because of their sex. It’s not clear this is true in today’s Ontario — Premier Kathleen Wynne is herself evidence of this. Hopefully common sense will prevail over ill-advised quotas that don’t help business or women in Ontario. We’ve come a long way, baby — with no quotas required.

Andrea Mrozek is program director at Cardus Family.

Source: Financial Post

comments closed

Related News

June 16, 2024

Why skills-first hiring alone may not improve diversity

Diversity & Inclusion

These efforts have potentially opened job opportunities for more than 80 million Americans without degrees, many of whom are people of color. However, hiring bias, race-based earnings disparities, and occupational segregation will not magically disappear with these new approaches to level the playing field for more candidates.

June 8, 2024

API women are only seen as workers, not leaders — and it has a huge impact on their pay

Diversity & Inclusion

For Asian professionals specifically, author Jane Hyun coined the term “bamboo ceiling” in her 2005 book, Breaking the Bamboo Ceiling: Career Strategies for Asians, to describe the racial biases that prevent qualified Asian people from breaking into leadership roles.

May 31, 2024

Is the push for Board diversity over?

Diversity & Inclusion

The number of women on S&P 500 boards soared from 23% in 2018 to 32% in 2023, and directors from racially and ethnically diverse groups grew from 20% in 2018 to 25% in 2023, according to research by the Conference Board. But if you look solely at data from 2022 to 2023, it’s clear that progress has slowed.

How can we help you?

We're easy to reach