On September 20 2011 my paper was presented at the European Commission's Gender Equality conference (with over 400 participants) in Brussels. The title was 'Advancing gender equality in economic decision-making'. It covers facts and figures on the current situation and good practices and strategies for improvement in organizations. It also provides a table with details on all current legislative initiatives for women on boards across EU, so Italy, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and outside EU Norway. An overview of EC policy on this topic to date, new policies for 2012 and recommendations for EU member states to achieve gender balanced boards form part of the report.

Some of the conclusions from the report are:
• The many initiatives taken to date have created awareness and increased pressure on companies and governments to improve women’s access to the decision-making power in the corporate world. However, progress has been glacially slow and more action is needed to reach gender balance in economic decision-making positions.

• By far the most effective instrument has been the Norwegian quota law, but other relatively effective strategies can be found in Finland and Sweden. These strategies contain elements of effective corporate governance codes, leading to transparency, accountability and peer pressure, an active role of the government (in the form of target-setting for state-owned companies’ boards), a constructive role of the media and global policies in favour of gender equality.

• The major challenge in most countries is how to overcome resistance from the public and the corporate sector against quantified voluntary targets and legal quotas for board positions. The Norwegian experience has learned that after the implementation of quotas the resistance fades away and boards ‘just get on with business like before'.

If you want to receive the full report, no charge, send an email to info@mv-imc.com.

Letter to the editor of the Economist

As a long time subscriber to the Economist I take special interest in their views on the lack of women in the boardroom. Two weeks ago a few articles were published, and again the Economist connected flexible and teleworking opportunities to the presence of women on boards. I could not help reacting. Here is the(edited version of the) letter I wrote to the editor that was published on August 6th in the print edition:

"SIR - Research shows us that women leave senior positions before they reach board level because of a lack of rewards (unequal pay), lack of interesting opportunities (being sidelined into supporting and staff roles) and lack of access to informal networks. Flexible working arrangements and teleworking are useful in creating a pipeline of qulaified women, and men, at middle-management level, but the impact is limited when it comes to boards. This is because the work of board members and other senior management does not involve executing tasks sitting at a desk. Rather it is about influencing decision-making, being connected to the right networks and creating visibility for your leadership style". See http://www.economist.com/node/21525341

My message is simple: only if we are able to differentiate between the needs of 'all women in management' and those aspiring and able to reach board positions, we will start developing programs addressing the right needs for the right women at the right time, instead of continuing to go for this 'one size fits all approach'. Still lots of work to do, and the letter in the Economist proves that it is very necessary.

Again the Netherlands is champion in doing things "part time". Already at the far end of the spectrum on part time work for women (76% in 2009, against the European average of 32%), a similar position at the far end is looming looking at the recently adopted 'quota law' for women on boards.
Indeed, after Norway, Spain, France, and just before Italy and Belgium, the Netherlands has taken legislative steps to improve the underrepresentation of women on boards: companies are encouraged to strike a gender balance, meaning at least 30% of either gender on the board.

That was the good news. Now, is it going to work?
Probably not. For three reasons: first of all, there is no penalty or sanction, so it is a law without teeth. In case of non-compliance the company needs to include a statement in its annual report about the causes for failure and the plans to correct it.
Secondly, the law is a temporary or, in line with the part-time work culture, 'part time' law: the quota clauses will be rendered void per January 2016. Regardless of results...
Thirdly, it will not work because the law applies to ALL companies with more than 250 employees and for ALL board positions (supervisory and executive); this is too much of a leap forward and at danger of not being taken seriously...
Just to paint the picture: in the largest 5000 companies only 3.4% of executive board seats are taken by women. The situation is better if you look at the largest 100 companies and only at their supervisory level: 15%! But again at executive board level again around 3%. The vast majority of companies will seriously struggle to meet the requirements in just three years.

But then, why should they bother?
Well, here are some incentives. First of all, shareholders and investors could hold boards accountable to comply. Simply because it is good for business. New leadership acknowledges that diversity is the first ingredient for innovation, next to inclusive leadership and culture. Institutes, universities, women's groups, statistical bureaus will be monitoring and reporting on progress and failures. If government does not apply pressure through legal penalties, the public and press will have to.
Last, but not least, it may well be that we just have to wait until the European Commission will use legal instruments to drive change:'fulltime legislation with sharp teeth'!Time for CEO's and Chairmen to act now.

Already 265 registrations for the launch on June 3rd! Questions from the audience keep pouring in. It will be a challenge to answer all of them in just over an hour. But I promise I will answer each question in more detail in this blog for the next couple of days - so keep watching this space!

How did I experience the book launch on May 24th in London?
It was simply overwhelming to see so many familiar and new faces attending the launch - truly overwhelming! But the best part was undoubtedly the debates, questions and interaction before and after with the audiences. Especially my call to start becoming really serious about leadership, and about the role women need to take up in creating a sustainable future, in finance, facilities mgt or public roles, sparked a lot of debate. I shared my leadership statement (which can be found in my book): "I am responsible because I am part of the system; I am the system; therefore I am serious about change, of myself first and foremost and of society, by striving for a more balanced leadership". When women become serious about leadership, I am convinced the world will see a change. Therefore I called on women to take their leadership talent seriously and to share their thoughts about female leadership with others. Almost all leadership books are written by men and describe a generic style of leadership. Female leadership is a sub chapter, if at all. Women are now discovering their own style, their own criteria for succes and - most importantly - their own motivation for wanting to lead. We need more women willing to take the lead and more women authors to describe this new paradigm!

One of the most fundamental challenges of our time is restoring trust in the financial system. This is not a 'nice to have' but a 'need to have' since we all, individuals - families - companies and governments, rely upon the system to live our lives and conduct our business. Being part of the system, and therefore being responsible, I took the initiative last year to write a consultation paper to the European Commission, with 10 recommendations. The title of our advice was "From Checks and Controls to Changing the Core Culture".

Already much has been said about the perceived arrogance of some CEO's of financial institutions who refuse to apologize for the mess they created and the bail-outs by taxpayers. Many critized the prevailing corporate culture in some institutions in which dissenting opinions were not heard and risk taking behaviour was exponentially rewarded by bonuses. But very few could imagine the turn of events we are witnessing now at the IMF. As a lawyer I very much uphold the principle of 'assumed innocence before proven guilty'. But again as a lawyer, I am aware that even the smallest hint or suggestion could cause reputations to be destroyed in the public eye.

How come a leader of such a highly regarded institution finds it acceptable at such a pivotal moment in European history (saving Greece and the Euro) to take high risks in his private life?

It is time for the financial sector to appoint leaders that uphold the highest standards of personal integrity and respect towards their employees and clients. Since there is a large untapped pool of female talent, it should be much easier now to find the right persons for these jobs!

Last week I was interviewed by newspaper Kathimerini, based in Athens. Needless to say that leadership (or the quality of it) is an issue attracting lots of attention in Greece right now. And yes, the journalist asked me the multimilliondollar question: Shall we have to wait for a female prime minister in Greece - or in any country - to see things radically changing?

There is no black and white answer here, of course, no 'yes' or 'no' based on facts, figures and research. There is only a 'maybe' answer, since in general among both men and women we find excellent leaders. Or a 'hopefully' answer, expressing confidence and trust in the change of culture that might follow a change in leadership if that leadership is so hugely different from the past - even if it is in the 'gender component' only.... Maybe the best answer is a question again: why not? It does not take an academic education to see that the old recipe has not been working well lately, so why not change and see what happens? I am confident it will be an improvement although I cannot prove it.... it's simple not black and white, but more colorful....