Parity in the C-Suite: It is not a gender issue
Despite much talk and fanfare about increasing the number of women in the workplace on the one hand and the C-suite in the other, the number of women leading Fortune 500 companies fell by 25% between 2017 and 2018. According to a report by McKinsey, progress to include more diversity in the workplace, including gender, has not only slowed down it has stalled.
On a recent panel with and about women in leadership positions, I asked why women were not staying in their top spot once they had earned it. The answer I was given was that women did not necessarily want the lifestyle that accompanied the seat on the uppermost rung. Plus, it is already lonely at the top, as a woman it is even lonelier. In a recap of the subject with my husband, he concurred. “Not many men want this lifestyle either,” he said.
So why do they seem to be working so hard? He did not know and my admittedly rudimentary research yielded nothing. Conditioning seems to be the most convenient answer. So are we, perhaps, asking the wrong questions?
Companies and governments are rightly saying that more opportunity should be given to more women to rise to the top should they choose to do so. But men have often admitted to me that they never understood the fuss about gender parity, and that quotas and numbers are not necessarily the best way to go about it. Why couldn’t the women just compete with them on their level playing field? They were not ready to make any compromises but the women were more than welcome to fight them on their turf.
There is no arguing against workforce diversification. Just like a good piano piece requires multiple intelligences — reading notes, memorization, coordination and multi-tasking — so diversity will add value to a workforce because it will add multiple perspectives and sensibilities and will allow for a more agile organization, better able to cope with the new economy, post industry 4.0 revolution.
But should we, rather than asking women to toughen up, be asking the men to soften up? Should men be given more choice and opportunity to say they don’t want to continue working in a corporate environment? Is it, in fact, the women who should invite the men to their level playing field and not vice versa? Should the question we ask be not why are there no more women in the C-Suite and how can we get them there, but why are the men there in the first place? Once we understand people’s motivation for work the whole conversation will change.
Some people work to survive. Some people work because they believe they can live a better life — in bigger spaces, richer countries. They can embellish themselves and their homes. They can take more exclusive holidays — often paying a fortune to experience a life that requires little or no money to lead.
And some people work because they genuinely believe that they have something to contribute to society. More often than not these are the creatives, the writers, designers, cooks, painters to name but a few. Even within the corporate world there are those who believe that they are making the world a better place and these are the people who tend to stick to their work for the long haul. The fat bonus helps too.
So the question is not one of numbers and quotas or men or women: it is very much about vocation. The women who make it to the top of the ladder will share the same characteristics as the men who get there. Most importantly they will all be people who believe that they have something to contribute to the population, human race, advancement of society.
Only when companies and governments truly understand people’s motivation to work, can they get a truly diverse, efficient and, perhaps most importantly, happy workforce that will contribute to the economy. Only then can you have a fair match on a level playing field. This is not about gender or ethnicity or race or generation or sexual orientation. The question is about people. The answer is about being simply human.