Introduction
Quotas and the many other affirmative action policies seek to further access equality and opportunities together with increasing diversity in workplaces and communities. Over the last few decades, women have made significant progress in political activism, participation in the labor force, and education in different places around the globe. However, Pande and Ford (2011) argue that despite such advancements, gender gaps in leadership still exist even in the most advanced societies, including the US and Europe. Women have suffered for a long from the politics of patriarchy and social organization frameworks putting males at the top of society.
For instance, before 1890, women did not enjoy voting rights anywhere in the world, but the situation has changed to allow them to participate in voting and other civic duties (Pande and Ford 2011). The problem with the current times is that womenâs advancement has not led to significant increases in their leadership, whether in politics or business. This paper discusses the usefulness of setting quotas in improving gender diversity in leadership. The argument made throughout this paper is that quota policy plays a central role in ensuring that women get leadership positions in business and politics.
The Role of Quotas in Improving Diversity in Leadership
Leadership is not supposed to be held by selected groups of individuals because, based on the available theories on the subject, becoming an effective leader is not related to one’s gender. According to French et al. (2015), leadership could be taught, and thus any person, with the right training and exposure could become a leader. As such, the concept of men dominating leadership positions is not based on any scientific research. Such social beliefs have emerged from the many years of women’s oppression and inequality in society. However, things are changing, and with emerging theories on this subject, women are slowly finding their place in leadership positions across different areas, from politics and education to the corporate world. One such theory is the charismatic approach to leadership. French et al. (2015) argues that charismatic leaders are confident, articulate their visions clearly, and they have a firm belief in their visions. Dorfman et al. (2012) hold that gender equality is common under charismatic leadership. To address the usefulness of quotas, it is important to understand whether inclusion, diversity, and equal opportunities are desirable in the first place.
The issue of quotas could be explained from economic and ethical perspectives. From an ethical point of view, women should have equal opportunities in leadership as a moral issue because failure to do so would lead to marginalization, which results in many disadvantages. Therefore, the introduction of quota policies would counter such negative effects by giving women certain advantages in any form of the selection process, be it in politics or business (Schwindt-Bayer 2009; Sojo et al. 2016). From an economic standpoint, quota policies improve diversity and inclusion, which could have a positive influence on business performance (Ely and Thomas 2001). Therefore, it suffices to argue that setting quotas would improve diversity in leadership positions, which comes with numerous benefits. The following section discusses, using case studies from countries around the globe, the usefulness of setting quotas to improve diversity in both politics and business leadership.
One importance of using a quota system to promote diversity in leadership is the changing attitudes of women concerning the topic. Currently, most women feel that they are prepared and ready to take leadership positions in organizations and politics. A study conducted in West Bengal, India, showed that women leaders feel as competent as their male counterparts do when carrying out their leadership duties after being in office for two years (Pande and Ford 2011)âin addition, changing attitudes towards working women many not necessarily change the same concerning women in leadership. For instance, the majority of people in different parts of the world agree that the place of women is no longer in the kitchen. Therefore, females can now work in different capacities in various organizations. However, this change in attitude has not led to more women occupying leadership positions. A study conducted in 2006 in the US showed that 50 percent of Americans would prefer their bosses to be males as opposed to females (Pande and Ford 2011). Consequently, with such mentalities, the only feasible way of ensuring that women get into leadership positions is through setting quotas. Without such policies, it would not matter whether societal attitudes concerning women are changing or not, and thus the current challenges will still be in place to impede gender equality and diversity in leadership.
Another factor that underscores the usefulness of setting quotas is the assumption that economic development promotes female leadership. Logically, as countries grow economically, more opportunities would be created for women leaders (Duflo 2012). However, this line of thinking is not based on sound scientific findings. For instance, most developed countries, including the US and the UK, continue to witness the underrepresentation of females in leadership roles, whether in politics or business (Gipson et al., 2017). For instance, Americans have never elected a female president, which cancels the popular assumption that economic development leads to female leadership (Gipson et al., 2017).
Similarly, the ever-broadening career paths for women have not led to an equal increase in female leaders. This means that while women are increasingly occupying top management positions in different companies, they are still disadvantaged in various areas. Additionally, in some cases, it is assumed that increased political representation would spill over to the corporate world. However, in places like Norway, where women have been empowered, through quota policies, to join politics and become leaders, the same effect is not felt in the corporate world (Geys and Sorensen 2019). As such, setting quotas and enforcing the laws governing the same would solve these problems for women to occupy leadership positions and diversify the workplace in the process.
Women also face numerous barriers in their bid to become leaders, especially in the corporate world. First, women carry more childcare responsibilities as compared to males, which means that they are associated with higher costs of entering and continuing in the job market (Seo, Huang and Han 2017; Kossek and Buzzanell 2018). Therefore, without quotas, it would mean that assuming a leadership position is based on experience. However, given the above argument, women may work for fewer hours due to childbearing and care responsibilities. As such, when leadership opportunities arise, men are likely to take them because they have more experience. On-the-job experience is one of the main factors that are considered when giving leadership posts to workers, and thus men are technically advantaged.
Consequently, few women will ever qualify for leadership positions if such a criterion is used. Women are also disadvantaged because they lack enough role models to inspire them to compete for leadership roles. In addition, in some cases, women might not be interested in competition, yet becoming a leader demands competitiveness (Hoyt 2010). According to Niederle and Vesterlund (2007), when compared to men, women do not prefer competitive engagements, especially when put against their male counterparts. Therefore, given the current competitive winner-takes-all leadership environment, which is dominated by males, women face an additional challenge. Consequently, the introduction of quota systems would level the ground for women and help them become leaders without having to engage in unfair competition with males.
The issue of gender inequality could also be viewed from the demand side of society, especially in politics. Beaman et al. (2009) argue that taste discrimination disadvantages women who are seeking leadership positions. Such favoritism is based on personal tastes based on social norms. As such, voters may prefer a male to female leaders due to the belief that women should not be in such positions (Adams 2016). The case of the US has never elected a female president could be an appropriate example of this assertion. Statistical discrimination also affects the prospects of women becoming leaders (Eagly and Hellman 2016).
For instance, statistics may not have enough evidence to show the performance of women as leaders because there lacks enough data on the same given the few females occupying such positions. Therefore, numbers comparing women and males leaders are likely to be biased to favor men. Eagly and Hellman (2016) argue that discrimination is the greatest challenge that contributes to the underrepresentation of women in leadership positions. Biased systems of selection also reduce the chances of women being in leadership positions. For instance, the process of selecting board members in the corporate world is based on networks to the existing members and officials (Fairfax 2006). Consequently, qualified women may miss out because they are not connected to anyone in the current boards. This problem could thus be solved by having a quota system that dictates the number of women that should be on boards of management.
However, despite the many advantages associated with quota systems in leadership, some available literature shows the negative effects that such systems could have on business and politics. The first argument is the crowd-out effect whereby reserving certain slots for women disadvantages other minority groups that would benefit from the same positions in an open system (Pande and Ford 2011). However, this argument is weak because the slots set aside for females could be given to women from different minority groups. In addition, quota policies could worsen allocations in that poorly qualified individuals could be given leadership positions, which might be counterproductive in the long term. Rudman and Fairchild (2004) add that quotas that encourage the placement of women in counter-stereotypical positions could increase taste discrimination. Additionally, women getting into leadership positions through quotas might be seen as incompetent, thus removing the importance of having such policies in the first place (Clayton 2015). However, the benefits of having quota systems are more than the disadvantages. To understand the effects of such policies, two case studies (Norway and Qatar) will be discussed to assess whether quotas have achieved the intended objectives.
The Case of Norway
In 2002, Ansgar Gabrielsen, the then Conservative Minister for Trade and Industry in Norway, proposed the introduction of a quota system when selecting company boards in the country (Seierstad et al., 2015). This bold step motivated women across the globe to start pushing for equality in leadership through policy, and 15 major European countries, including Spain, the UK, Iceland, France, Italy, and Belgium, enacted laws on quota systems (de Cabo et al. 2019). In 2003, a law was passed requiring 40 percent of slots in corporate boards in inter-municipality, state-owned, and public limited companies to be reserved for women in Norway (Seierstad et al., 2015). Due to the adoption of the quota system, Norway ranks third after Iceland and Finland as the most gender-equal countries in the world (Seierstad and Huse 2017).
This policy has also affected other areas of Norwegian society, especially in education. Seierstad and Huse (2017) posit that for the first time in the countryâs history, women obtained more PhDs as compared to men in the 2014-2015 period. Similarly, in 2015, the number of female students in institutions of higher learning was 60 percent (Seierstad and Huse 2017). In politics, the share of females in leadership positions has also been increasing significantly. For instance, in 2016, 47 percent of cabinet members were women, and the prime minister was also a female (Bergh and Karlsen 2017). This trend of increased diversity in the workplace, institutions of higher learning, and politics in Norway are attributed to the enactment of laws on quotas. While such a system is not applicable in schools, the effects have spilled over because young women have enough role models, and thus they are motivated to study hard to qualify for such positions. Therefore, from this case, it is clear that making quota policies play a significant role in improving diversity in leadership.
The Case of Qatar
Qatar is a symbol of socio-cultural change in the Middle East due to its fast-paced modernization and industrialization. Women are increasingly assuming leadership roles, especially under the guidelines of the Qatar National Vision 2030 (QNV 2030), which was made public in 2008 (Golkowska 2017). QNV 2030 seeks to promote gender equality in society in a region where such rights are uncommon. However, unlike other places like Norway that have quota policies in place, the Qatari government has not created such a framework for women to become leaders in politics and business. For instance, in 2009, only 3 percent of employed females occupied leadership positions (Golkowska 2014). Cultural factors are cited as some of the main reasons why Qatari women do not pursue careers in different professions that could allow them to occupy leadership positions. Therefore, comparing Qatar and Norway, the benefits of having quota systems and policies are pronounced. While in Norway, women take up to 40 percent of leadership posts as the minimum requirement by law, in Qatar, only 3 percent of females are leaders in business and politics. This realization shows the usefulness of setting quotas to improve diversity in leadership.
Conclusion
The concept of leadership and the associated theories have evolved with the changing societal norms, perceptions, and needs. Affirmative actions have allowed women to access education and leadership opportunities in different parts of the world. However, women face numerous challenges in their quest to serve in leadership positions. Most of these impediments could be removed through policies that reserve a particular number of leadership slots for women leaders. The Norwegian quota system is a good example of how policies could help women become leaders in politics and business. In Qatar, where such laws do not exist, the majority of leaders are males, with women assuming conservative roles in society. Therefore, it suffices to conclude that quota policies are useful tools for improving diversity in leadership across the globe.
Reference List
Adams, R. B. (2016) âWomen on boards: The superheroes of tomorrowâ, The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 371-386.
Beaman, L., Chattopadhyay, R., Duflo, E. et al. (2009) âPowerful women: Does exposure reduce bias?â, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 124, no. 4, pp. 1497-1540.
Bergh, J. and Karlsen, R. (2017) âNorway: Political development and data for 2017â, European Journal Political Research, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 221-226.
de Cabo, R. M. Terjesen, S. Escot, L. and Gimeno, R. (2019) âDo âsoft lawâ board gender quotas work? Evidence from a natural experimentâ, European Management Journal, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 611-624.
Clayton, A. (2015) âWomenâs political engagement under quota-mandated female representation: Evidence from a randomised policy experimentâ, Comparative Political Studies, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 333-369.
Dorfman, P., Javidan, M., Hanges, P. et al. (2012). âGLOBE: A twenty year journey into the intriguing world of culture and leadershipâ, Journal of World Business, vol. 47, pp. 504-518.
Duflo, E. (2012) âWomen empowerment and economic developmentâ, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 1051-1079.
Eagly, A. H. and Hellman, M. E. (2016) âGender and leadership: Introduction to the special issueâ, The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 27, pp. 349-353.
Ely, R. J. and Thomas, D. J. (2001) âCultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group diversity and outcomesâ, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 46, pp. 229-273.
Fairfax, L. (2006) âClogs in the pipeline: The mixed data on women directors and continued barriers to their advancementâ, Maryland Law Review, vol. 65, pp. 579-601.
French, R., Rayner, C., Rees, G. et al. (2015) Organisational behaviour. 3rd edn. Chichester: Wiley.
Geys, D. and Sorensen, R. (2019) âThe impact of women above the political glass ceiling: Evidence from a Norwegian executive gender quota reformâ, Electoral Studies, vol. go, pp. 2-10.
Gipson, A., Pfaff, D., Mendelsohn, D. et al. (2017) âWomen and Leadership: Selection, development, leadership style, and performanceâ, The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 32-65.
Golkowska, K. (2014) âArab women in the gulf and the narrative of change: The case of Qatarâ, International Studies, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 51-64.
Golkowska, K. (2017) âQatari women navigating gendered spaceâ, Social Sciences, vol. 6, no. 123, pp. 1-10.
Hoyt, C. L. (2010) âWomen, men, and leadership: Exploring the gender gap at the topâ, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, vol. 4, no. 7, pp. 474-498.
Kossek, E. E. and Buzzanell, P. M. (2018) âWomen’s career equality and leadership in organisations: Creating an evidenceâbased positive changeâ, Human Resource Management, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 813-822.
Niederle, M. and Vesterlund, L. (2007) âDo women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much?â, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 122, no. 3, pp. 1067-1101.
Pande, R. and Ford, D. (2011) Gender quotas and female leadership: A review. Background Paper for the World Development Report on Gender [Online]. Web.
Rudman, L. and Fairchild, K. (2004) âReactions to counterstereotypic behaviour: the role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenanceâ, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 157-176.
Seo, G., Huang, W. and Han, S.-H. C. (2017) âConceptual review of underrepresentation of women in senior leadership positions from a perspective of gendered social status in the workplace: Implication for HRD research and practiceâ, Human Resource Development Review, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 35-59.
Seierstad, C., Warner-Søderholm, G., Torchia, M. and Huse, M. (2015) âIncreasing the number of women on boards: the role of actors and processesâ, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 141, no. 2, pp. 289-315.
Seierstad, C. and Huse, M. (2017) âGender quotas on corporate boards in Norway: Ten years later and lessons learnedâ, in: Seierstad, C. Gabaldon, P. and Mensi-Klaberbach, H. (eds.) Gender diversity in the boardroom: Volume 1: The use of different quota regulations. London: Macmillan, pp.11-45.
Schwindt-Bayer, L. A. (2009) âMaking quotas work: The effect of gender quota laws on the election of womenâ, Legislative Studies Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 5-28.
Sojo, V. E., Wood, R. E., Sally, A., Wood, S. A. and Wheeler M. A. (2016) âReporting requirements, targets, and quotas for women in leadershipâ, Leadership Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 519-536.