I recently participated in two seminars on the subject of women in leadership, which prompts me to pen this piece. Whether I am wise to do so is another question as my views on the subject are somewhat ambivalent and uncertain, writes Niamh Brennan
The main motivation for seminars on women in leadership is to encourage and help more women reach their potential and occupy such positions.
"Society" is attempting to bring about social change by encouraging more women to aspire to top positions in their chosen fields. There is an aspiration to see men and women equally represented in the workplace (including top positions).
Increasingly we see women in leadership positions. With Mary McAleese as President and Mary Robinson before her, and Mary Harney as Tánaiste, there is no shortage of role models in Irish public life.
But statistics show that there is a long way to go before women are equally represented in higher positions.
For example, women account for only 5 per cent of directors, 3 per cent of chief executives, 13 per cent of TDs, 6 per cent of secretaries general of Government Departments, and only 7 per cent of High Court judges.
The National Women's Council has calculated that it will take 370 years for the percentage of women in the Dáil to reach 50 per cent! The phrase "a lot done, a lot more to be done" comes to mind. For women to become leaders in their chosen fields they have to demonstrate leadership. What are the classical qualities of leaders? Strength, firmness, determination? But when such characteristics are possessed by women, what was previously perceived as a "good" quality can be transformed into a "bad" quality.
As Baroness Margaret Jay (speaking at the Royal College of Surgeons 4th Annual Leadership Lecture) observed, a woman who is strong will often be perceived as "aggressive", a women who is firm as "bossy" and one who is determined as "strident".
Women cannot easily access business networks which are primarily male. As a result, women are largely excluded from much of the socialising that strengthens professional relationships. This is a widely quoted disadvantage for women aspiring to the top.
But this networking smacks to me of cronyism. In the world of the second-rate, hob-nobbing, clubs and golf assume greater importance.
Women see their exclusion from this world as a disadvantage; but it is only a disadvantage if cronyism is the only or easiest route to the top (as it is for the second-rate).
In a first-class world, merit and ability are the only criteria for success. For those women who are interested in the first-class, and who are interested in being promoted on merit, not being part of the old boys network should not be of great concern.
I am uncomfortable with positive action measures, such as quotas for women (e.g. the Government's commitment to have women directors comprise at least 40 per cent of State board membership). If appointed to a State board I would like to feel it was done on merit, and not for the purpose of reaching a quota. Is this vanity?
Now I really lose the plot! Although I have always had a full-time career, I am not sure the world would be a better place if all women did the same. Nor am I sure society would be better off if all women were focused excessively on becoming leaders.
We need to think carefully about the long-run effect on society of the messages and images we send to women - that career and leadership are important, and are valued (in money terms) and recognised (e.g. people in leadership positions are often photographed in newspapers), while the contribution by other women is not recognised by society (although it is hugely valued by their lucky spouses, children and extended families).
Unlike earlier times, women no longer need to get married from an economic point of view. Women can choose whether to have children. More and more women are choosing not to marry and not to have children. That might interfere with their careers.
Leadership requires 100 per cent commitment. If more women are to be 100 per cent committed to careers, this will be at a cost. We need to ask why the Australian government is offering women $3,000 to have children. Is this the direction in which we are heading? Do we want to go there?
We need balance. For women who choose a career, they should be able to progress to the level appropriate to their ability. But we must fête all women who choose motherhood and a home life.
They make a huge contribution in raising well-functioning adults, in looking after elderly relatives, in fundraising and other voluntary work. All unremunerated and unrecognised by society.
While there are clear Government policies to support women who have career ambitions, do we also need proactive policies to support non-career women, and to recognise in a meaningful way their huge contribution to a well-functioning society?
Do we run the risk otherwise of having to pay women to have children like the Australians, and of having a society significantly poorer in human and social terms?
Prof Niamh Brennan is Michael MacCormac professor of management, UCD
Garret FitzGerald and Martin Mansergh are on holidays