Abe’s plan to require businesses with 300-plus employees to establish targets for hiring women and getting them into management positions is a good start. But the policy is rife with escape clauses. Formal and binding quotas akin to Norway’s would have more teeth. Tokyo should at least start mandating leadership roles at the public-sector level and expand from there.<\/p>\n
Abe is looking to Norway for guidance:\u00a0 Norway introduced a 40% quota for female directors of listed companies in 2006, to come into force in 2008.\u00a0 Non-complying firms could theoretically be forcibly dissolved, though none has in fact suffered such a fate. Since then gender quotas for boards have been imposed in Belgium, Iceland, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain (though with less severe sanctions: non-complying firms must generally explain in their annual reports why they fell short and what they plan to do about it). The European Commission is considering imposing quotas across the EU. Malaysia has imposed a 30% quota for new appointments to boards, and Brazil a 40% target, though only for state-controlled firms. The governments of several other countries, including Australia, Britain and Sweden, have threatened to impose quotas if firms do not appoint more female directors voluntarily. So why are gender quotas becoming more common?<\/p>\n
One reason is a growing impatience with the glacial pace of voluntary change: women are the majority of all graduates almost everywhere in the developed world, but make up a smaller share of the workforce the further up the corporate ladder they go. Another is that Norway\u2019s quota law has not been the disaster some predicted. “As a principle, I don\u2019t like quotas,” Ider Kreutzer, the former chief executive of Storebrand, an insurance group, told the Financial Times the year after the law came into force. “But I have not been able to find any big problems with the legislation in practice.” Some had worried that they would actually decrease diversity by forcing companies to dive for the same small pool of eligible women, nicknamed the “golden skirts”. In fact, Norway still has more “golden trousers”\u2014male directors are twice as likely to sit on more than one board. Nor did it obviously lead to less qualified boards: female Norwegian board members are more likely to have a degree than male ones.<\/p>\n
Whether you think robust measures to increase the share of women in senior management are a good thing in the first place depends partly on how convinced you are that diversity in management is important. It might improve performance by mirroring the diversity of customers\u2014or, as our Schumpeter columnist recently argued (though about cultural rather than gender diversity), it might increase conflict, worsen communication and reduce workplace trust. Easier to dismiss is the still-common objection that quotas are anti-meritocratic: that is more true of the status quo. Oodles of research demonstrates that women are evaluated less positively than identically qualified men when applying for stereotypically male jobs, such as leadership roles. One study found that a commitment by hiring committees to shortlists with at least 25% women helped to remove anti-woman bias.<\/p>\n
Over time, advocates of quotas hope that a sudden large increase in the number of women in leadership will change attitudes.<\/p>\n
Abe’s plan to require businesses with 300-plus employees to establish targets for hiring women and getting them into management positions is a good start. But the policy is rife with escape clauses. Formal and binding quotas akin to Norway’s would … Continue reading ![\"Gender](\"http:\/\/www.w-t-w.org\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/10\/Gender-Equality-for-Japan.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"