Women in the Boardroom: Skirting Boards

董事会里的女性：裙裾摇曳的董事会

 

Quotas are spreading. But there are better ways to promote women

配额制正流行，但还有更好的方法来晋升女性

 

Since the days of the Vikings, when they farmed while men marauded, Norwegian women have played a big role in their community’s economy. So it was fitting that, ten years ago, Norway pioneered a policy to deal with a stubborn gender gap: the dearth of women directors on company boards.

 

在维京时代的挪威，男人征战掠夺，女人留守耕牧，自那时开始，挪威女性一直在社会经济中发挥着重要作用。难怪十年前挪威会率先推出政策，来解决性别差距中的一大顽固问题：公司董事会中女性董事稀少。

 

Amid objections from shareholders, Norway introduced compulsory quotas requiring stockmarket-listed companies to give women at least 40% of their board seats (up from less than 8% in 2002), or face dissolution. Critics, including this newspaper, decried mandatory quotas as the wrong way to promote women. But they have caught on. In Belgium, Germany and France women make up 30-40% of board directors in large listed firms, three to five times the share of a decade ago. In America, which has no quotas, representation has inched up to 20%. It is no surprise that companies follow the rules rather than face punishment. But does the spread of women in the boardroom justify the quota system itself?

 

在股东的反对声中，挪威实行了强制性的配额制，要求上市公司的董事会把至少40%的席位留给女性（2002年女性占比不足8%），否则将被解散。包括本刊在内的批评者曾抨击强制配额是晋升女性的错误方式。但配额制如今已风靡各地。在比利时、德国和法国，大型上市公司董事会内的女性比例为30%至40%，是十年前的三到五倍。在没有实行配额制的美国，董事会内女性比例缓慢上升至20%。公司自然会遵从规定以免受罚。但是，女性董事比例上升就能证明配额制合理吗？

 

The good news is that quotas have not borne out their critics’ fears. Those who opposed them said the idea of token non-executives was demeaning for women, who would prefer to rise on the basis of merit rather than sex. It also jeopardised corporate governance, the sceptics warned, by putting women in positions for which they were possibly underqualified, or staffing several boards with the same clique of high-achievers – known disparagingly as “golden skirts”.

 

好消息是，配额制并未印证批评者的担忧。反对人士认为，女性更愿意依靠自身才能而非性别获得擢升，担任象征意义的非执行董事反而有辱她们的尊严。怀疑论者警告道，把女性放到她们可能并不胜任的位置上，或是让同一群顶尖女性（被贬称为“金裙党”）占据多家上市公司的董事席位，都会危害公司治理。

 

The evidence suggests otherwise. In large listed European companies “golden trousers” are almost as common: 15% of male directors sit on three or more boards; 19% of women directors do. Compared with the clubby, white-maned boards of old, women bring youth and foreign experience.

 

但证据表明并非如此。在大型欧洲上市公司中，“金裤党”几乎同样常见：15%的男性董事在三个或以上的公司董事会任职；女性董事的这一数字为19%。相对于以往白人男性抱团的董事会，女性董事往往能带来年轻活力和海外经验。

 

Yet, the evidence so far also undermines the business case for quotas. Studies from at least six countries on companies’ performance, decision-making and stockmarket returns fail to show that quotas make a consistent difference, good or bad. That has not stopped pension funds lobbying for more inclusiveness. In Britain they are urging some listed companies to give women 30% of boardroom and senior-executive jobs.

 

然而，目前这些证据同时也表明配额制的商业理据不足。在至少六个国家就公司业绩、决策制定及股票市场回报的研究表明，配额制未能带来持续的变化，无论是正面还是负面。这并未打消养老基金游说企业增加女性高层的热情。在英国，它们正敦促部分上市公司把30%的董事会席位和高层职位给予女性。

 

Ms-ing the point

不得要领

 

That highlights a problem with boardroom quotas. They are a distraction from the task of advancing the prospects for women further down the career ladder – which really could make a difference to women and the companies that employ them. In Norway only 7% of the biggest companies have female bosses. In Britain, France, Germany and the Netherlands 80-90% of senior-management jobs are still held by men. In rich countries the median full-time wage for women is less than for men, because more women have lower-paid jobs. You might think that a larger number of women on boards would help right these imbalances. So far they have not.

 

这突显了董事会配额制的一个问题。改善女性在职场上晋升的前景对女性和她们的雇主都会产生积极的影响，然而配额制却是与这项任务相背离的。在挪威，只有7%的大公司由女性担任总裁。在英国、法国、德国和荷兰，80%到90%的高管职位仍由男性担任。在富裕国家，全职女性的工资中位数低于男性，因为女性更多从事较低薪酬的工作。你可能觉得让大量女性进入公司董事会能纠正这种不平衡，但目前为止并没有。

 

The wrong response to this would be more mandatory prescriptions, such as quotas. The workplace is too complicated for that. At the very most they should be voluntary and temporary tools to accelerate progress, not permanent fixtures. Other proven policies are a better bet. Fathers should be encouraged to take parental leave, so that child-bearing does not harm a mother’s chance of making it to the top. Variable working hours should become the norm. High-quality child care, and more accommodating school calendars, would help.

 

对此，如果再推行更多的硬性规定，如增加配额，会是一种错误的应对方式。职场太复杂，不宜如此简单地处理。这类措施最多可被用作能加速进程的自愿执行和临时性工具，而非永久性的解决办法。其他业经证明的政策是更稳妥的选择。应鼓励男性休育儿假，这样女性在职场登顶的机会就不会因育儿而受损。弹性工作制应成为常态。高质量的托儿服务及更灵活的学校日程安排也会有所帮助。

 

Time may yet prove that boardroom quotas are good for the business as a whole. So far, they have been a sideshow. The more important task is to make it easier for more women lower down the company to keep good jobs and fight their way to the top on their own merits.

 

也许时间会证明董事会配额制在整体上对商界有益。但到目前为止，它们只是一出插曲。更重要的任务是要帮助更多中低层女性保住好工作，以及创造条件让她们更容易凭自身才干力争上游。

下载：英文、中文版本