There is plenty of high quality research (Eagly & Karau, 1991, 2002, just for starters) showing that gender bias, as well as all the other biases we know about in the workplace, are alive and kicking (have a look at Antonio's piece on the subject). This has led recently to a campaign for board quotas for women in the UK, as has been introduced in countries such as Norway. The enforcement of selection of particular groups via quotas feels demeaning to many of us who are members of these groups, in our case because we don't want to be identified as a category (arguably naïve) and because we like to think we stand a chance of being selected on our own merits.
There is a further line of argument recently rehearsed in the media in support of board quotas for women which is that they bring a different set of characteristics and skills to the boardroom than men. Getting into the topic of gender differences is to enter shark infested waters; are we talking nature or nurture; are they social and educational constructs? Genuine sex differences in ability are fairly slight and are more a matter of superficial style and interpretation1 (Kimura, 2000; Cameron, 2007). Differences in social groups tend be preferences expressed in behaviour and superficial identity that are useful shorthand in the way we categorise and navigate the world.
The output of any organisational teams is the result of complicated interactions between people. We tend to like to work with people who are similar to ourselves at a social level. Psychologists call this similar-to-me bias (Searle, 2003) and it helps to smooth the process of these interactions. It's therefore not a surprise that most boards, but particularly those of the country's largest public companies, are dominated by a demographically homogenous group which just happens to be white men from similar backgrounds. What has historically made this group strong in so many ways is also its Achilles heel. Its cohesiveness born out of superficial social characteristics, makes for strong bonds, easier communication and a common frame of reference (Brown, 2000) but also leads to conformity, an over blown sense of the group's abilities, self referencing, a lack of vigilance and the tendency to extremes in making decisions that can lead to Groupthink (Janis, 1982) and other potentially risky behaviour. And clearly it's not just companies that are subject to these processes. As the Iraq Inquiry has shown, high level committees in governments are just as vulnerable. The similarity of these groups may make the initial phases (sometimes referred to as the ''forming and norming'') easier, but it can also restrict their output. There is a mounting body of evidence, for instance, that such homogenous groups tend to be poor at innovating (West, Hirst, Richter & Shipton, 2004).
The best way of avoiding these pitfalls and getting the highest levels of output is to have balanced teams; this means not just people of both genders, but people from diverse backgrounds, ages and ethnicities. While this may make teams harder work initially in terms of selection and induction, and may lead to more challenging discussions in the boardroom, studies show that this will yield results down the line in terms of decision making and innovation, as well as financial performance (Gratton, 2005, McKinsey, 2007). So in our view, organisations shouldn't need quotas to select women or any other social group but should rather be encouraged to see the commercial benefits of selecting from a wider pool. We need to help them be more energetic and imaginative in identifying and attracting talent. There is enough evidence that well balanced teams make organisations fitter and stronger and have a direct commercial benefit. This is why we need more women (and people from a wider range of backgrounds) in top teams and we shouldn't need legislation to hammer this message home.
1 As Diane Halpern observes in her book on cognitive abilities, female-favouring fine motor skills were, not so long ago, considered to make women especially suited to clerical jobs, but are also pretty useful for careers in brain surgery.
References
Brown, R. (2000). Group Processes. Blackwell Publishing, 2nd edition.
Cameron, D. (2007). The Myth of Mars and Venus. OUP.
Eagly, A. H. & Karau, S.J. (1991) Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 60 (5) , 685-710.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S.J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review 109 , 573-59.
Gratton, L., Kelan, E., Voigt, A., Walker, L., & Wolfram, H-J. (2007). Innovation Potential: men and Women in Teams. London Business School.
Halpern, D.F. (2000). Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities. Lawrence Erlbaum, 3rd edition.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Kimura, D. (2000). Sex and cognition. MIT.
McKinsey & Co. (2007). Women Matter: Female Leadership, a Competitive Edge for the Future.
Searle, R. (2003). Selection and Recruitment: A Critical Text. Palgrave Macmillan.
West, M.A., Hirst, G., Richter, A., & Shipton, H. (2004). Twelve steps to heaven: Successfully managing change through developing innovative teams. European Journal Of Work and Organizational Psychology,13 (2) , 269–299.
