Diversity Quotas, Diverse Perspectives (The Case of Gender)

Citation

Jinky Leilanie Del Prado Lu (2015), "Diversity Quotas, Diverse Perspectives (The Case of Gender)", Gender in Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 332-334. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-02-2015-0008

The woman question in the workplace poses so many issues. There is the man–woman divide in the following domains. First, in the type of work: secretarial type of work versus labor-intensive work; second, in the type of occupation such as teaching and the caring professions that are traditionally linked to women; third, in the organizational structure where men dominate managerial and supervisory roles. Altering gender stereotypes in the occupational structure requires institutional reforms, including that of the educational system to accommodate women in courses traditionally linked to men and vice versa. However, in the occupational structure of an organization, the corrective mechanism against gender bias is to intentionally employ more women, or to establish quotas for women employees. Groschel and Tagaki’s book discusses the ongoing gender reforms in European workplaces, which shows an approach toward this direction.

The book presents the institutionalization of gender quotas using the experiences of countries of the industrialized world. The rationale of diversity quotas is rooted in the politico-legal underpinning of gender quotas that aims to protect the basic “equality rights” of all individuals in society. Following up from diversity quotas applied to minority groups, such as the six per cent in France and five per cent in Germany for persons with disabilities, similar attempts were soon pursued in corporate boards to ensure gender quotas in Norway, Holland, Spain and France. As a result of this, many governments in industrialized countries have promulgated diversity and gender quotas aiming to equalize the rights of constituents and to serve as a corrective measure for the underrepresentation of the non-mainstream groups, including women, in social, economic and political roles. This is also anchored on the principle of proportional representation of diverse groups within the socio-political order.

The expediency of having more women in top managerial positions is paramount in the discourse of gender mainstreaming in the workplace, which is argued by several scholars in this book. Having more women workers is merely a part of the whole spectrum of addressing gender bias. Huse and Doldor argue for more women in corporate boards in Norway and in the UK, respectively; Hurd and Dyer push for equal employment opportunities in New Zealand through legislation, which is also advocated by Nkomo in South Africa. The research findings in the book parallel the clamor of feminists to have more women in the public sphere, both quantitatively and qualitatively through not only employing more women, but also having more women in positions of power to institutionalize women policies and programs. The Diversity Quotas mentioned in the book, for instance, propose to accommodate more women in employment because bringing back the “woman issue” in a framework that is anti-woman is considered self-defeating. Moreover, it is argued that bringing back women into a labor economy that is masculine and anti-woman is merely reactionary. The Diversity Quota provides a constitutive framework for working on progressive and broad arrangements for women’s inclusion.

The book also argues for the legal power of Diversity Quotas as a transformative move toward gender parity in the public sphere. The formulation of laws on diversity quotas is seen as central primarily because law is power. Power is not merely a restriction or imposition from above, but it shapes constitutive dynamics and dialectics where individuals are subjected to a set of disciplinary practices. In the case of Norway, for instance, the surge of women in corporate boards was linked not to the social and educational reforms that were implemented but to the passing of a law requiring at least 40 per cent of the board members to come from the least represented gender. However, the system and its laws are sexed and gendered to begin with. Therefore, the mere inclusion of women into such an arrangement will not alter the structure that disadvantages women.

An overall theme running through the experiences of women in several industrialized countries including Spain, New Zealand, South Africa, UK and The Netherlands is the existence of gender parity legislation and corollary programs achieved by probing deeper into the reconstruction of core workplace concepts of authority, domain, turf, skills, qualifications and accountability. Indeed, the quota allocation of female employees is one mechanism of redefining who (or which gender) is qualified at work. The critique, however, to gender quotas is the tolerance of the incompetent in the workforce for the sake of representativeness, which is said to undermine the gains of hard-earned meritocracy. But, can the critics deny that there are differences in gender socialization, power politics between men and women, and the power structure created by and for men? As shown by Skully in the book, meritocracy can also stigmatize quotas, such as in the case of the USA. The issue of representativeness was also addressed in the case of the Dutch experience: The Dutch Corporate Governance Code allocated a minimum of 30 per cent of the seats in the board for either men or women, but reappointment of directors was based on careful evaluation of performance. When gender quotas are assessed mainly using a masculine appraisal tool for performance and success, the usefulness of the program is under question. The framework of evaluation in The Netherlands ultimately re-assessed and included other non-economic values such as a caring environment, social corporate responsibility and gender justice.

An interesting case presented in the book that shows the inherent benefits of diversity quotas is the case of New Zealand, where the experience on Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) seeks to ensure that all citizens regardless of culture and background have access to equal opportunities of employment. In this case, diversity quotas reflect the diversity of cultures and social interests of the general population, which is positive as employment structures that accommodate the varied interests of people in society are said to benefit both corporate institutions and the public. A diverse workforce understands the diverse preferences of clients and stakeholders, and this leads to improved customer service and better public image. This, in turn, leads to increased organizational performance and improved national economic performance. Gabaldon argues that in the case of Spain, having women in corporate boards is statistically and empirically linked to improved organizational performance because diversity offers different leadership styles and more encompassing agendas. This suggests that there is a link between good corporate governance and good diversity management.

The book argues that access to actual paid employment is a fundamental human right which is linked to public engagement and participation. Indeed, there is a growing recognition and trend for a gender-balanced society and more women in power positions including the corporate world because research has shown the value-adding contribution of women’s work. Dealing with gender justice in the corporate world is a good avenue toward creating equal opportunities and facilitating resources between genders, thus addressing the gender power imbalance, the relationship between sexuality and gendered politics, the feminization of power and the more fundamental issue of human dignity at work.