Now I am out of the rain, I thought I'd reproduce my Shifting Grounds piece on HR, women and politics here for your viewing pleasure.
Please do comment either here or over on the main site- I've had a great response to this piece and would love to hear from all sides of the debate.
And do keep up to speed with all the other writers contributing to this fantastic site- it features voices from across the world of politics, making sense of what Westminster's decisions mean for businesses and individuals.
----
Traditionally, the world of Human Resources (such a cold
expression) nee Personnel (not much
better) has been considered womens’ domain.
In business we’re either portrayed as policy-driven, process-obsessed middle
aged women in a closed office who tell you what you can’t do, or as mothers-
supportive and nurturing of those in favour, punitive if you cross the line.
Men who have opted for a career in HR are often overlooked,
or are considered somehow beyond it and into the realms of business advisors,
coaches and mentors. It’s a shame. There are some brilliant, creative men in HR,
such as Doug Shaw, Mervyn Dinnen, Michael Carty, Sukh Pabial and many others I will
kick myself for not remembering to recognise as soon as I post this.
HR has undergone a revolution in recent years, with the
perception of our profession being blown wide open in favour of remembering
what we’re all about: the People.
The new voices in HR are positive, recognising the
importance of engaged and collaborative teams, of living by strong values and preferring
productive conversations over appraisal meetings. It’s friendlier, and more
about practicalities than creating endless documents and memos that are rarely
read or understood. Suddenly HR is a career choice for a wide range of people,
rather than something many people end up doing by accident.
As both HR practitioner and political activist, I can’t help
but note that as HR evolves to be more relevant to business and people (and how this is driven by
both genders) we have seen a changing role for women in politics. Currently,
more Shadow Cabinet posts
are held by women than ever before.
So how about our Cabinet? There’s
precious little diversity at all, even before you consider there are half as
many women as in the Shadow Cabinet. It’s disappointing when you consider that
the Conservative Party saw more of its female candidates elected than ever
before in 2010, while
Labour has seen its number decline from the 1997 high of 101 female MPs. Of
course this reflects changing electoral fortunes, too- but it’s interesting
nonetheless.
Meanwhile in business, the statistics around female Managing
Directors or CEOs and the number of HR professionals on boards are grim
reading, with only two women heading up FTSE 100 companies at time of writing,
and a
poorer picture still for HR, despite our accepted purpose of establishing
connections with people at every level of our organisations.
So what would I do
about it? Well, jockeying women into positions to fulfil some sort of
target isn’t healthy for anyone, least of all the women involved.
We've recently seen an EU
proposal that would see companies compelled to ensure 40% of board members
are female. I have mixed feelings on this. While there is certainly a need to
see more women on boards, there’s often little to be achieved in crowbarring
people in to roles to fulfil an imposed obligation. A board position- like any
promotion- should be awarded on the basis of ability, not gender.
There’s a risk of boards becoming bloated, with women promoted
into non-executive positions to meet the target and fake a commitment to
equality- but with the key decisions retained by the existing (male) board
members. So in effect, you have women who look to hold positions of
responsibility, but with little say in how things really get done. Trust me
when I tell you: that’s frustrating, and you often feel more disrespected than
if you’d been left off the list all together.
But if working in a
male-dominated world, how does a woman make her abilities known, and gain
recognition?
I would suggest that perhaps better talent identification
holds the key. Business owners should present challenges that will enable
problem solvers of both genders to show their abilities. They should hold
conversations about personal goals that count instead of “Where do you see yourself in 5 years’ time?” Business leaders- and
not just HR- must allow employees equal time, opportunity and space to shine in
order to learn what their people are really good at. If they do this they can develop
them well, foster loyalty and get the most value from them.
It often requires a drastic change in culture, which sadly doesn’t happen overnight. But it’s not an
excuse not to start. If you create a space where women and men can flourish,
natural abilities will come to the fore and leaders will make themselves known.
So yes, women need to be board members and Ministers, but
let’s ensure they are given the opportunities and resources needed to win their
place in the same way as their male colleagues. Let’s identify the talent.
Let’s prepare them, coach them and position them in such a way that a seat at
the table is the natural progression, not something that’s done to tick a box.
In the same way, I don’t fully support the Labour Party’s use of All-Women
Shortlists (AWS)
when selecting candidates. This Party already has the strongest track record of
all Parties in promoting the role of women in politics- but even that could be
drastically improved.
There is too high a concentration of women in the UK in minimum wage and often part-time
jobs. They often have familial responsibilities or are politically disengaged,
but are usually painfully aware of the impact that decisions made in
Westminster have on working people. These are the women we should be
encouraging into politics, and as yet I see no evidence that AWS has done that.
I don’t advocate dropping AWS all together, but I would
venture that it could be improved enormously if the shortlists included employees
of ASDA and the cafe at the local garden centre as well as the University educated
women in higher-paid jobs. For me, there’s a need for local politicians as well
as national ones to connect with community groups, where women’s talents often
shine and candidates may be identified.
With turnouts falling and an increasing disillusionment with
politics and politicians, there’s a real need for all parties to select candidates that look
like the communities they represent- whether that’s working class, black,
white, gay, straight, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, women, men, mums and dads- or any
combination of the above.
Let’s make “They’re
all the same” something we heard in the dark years post-expenses scandal, before we saw
sense and made aspiring representatives of the people representative of the people.
So, from this HR practitioner’s perspective (from her desk
amongst the people she works with and for) it doesn’t matter if we’re talking
politics or HR: it’s about People, fairness and equality of opportunity- for
everyone.
