Equality

The dictionary definition of equality is “the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability”. The concept of equality is premised upon equal treatment of people irrespective of superficial factors such as sex, sexuality, race or creed. There has been much debate about the extent of equality in business, especially between men and women. In this context, the debate must be predicated on the basis that the fundamental qualifications, experience and ability of the men and women in question are equal in order for an assessment of equality to be fair. This discussion rages now as forcefully as ever, despite there being more opportunities for women in modern, democratic societies than at any other time in history.

There can be no doubt that in modern, democratic societies women enjoy enormously enriched lives compared to only a few decades previously. The scope to pursue a career is infinite. No longer is it accepted nor expected that women stay at home. Make no mistake, we have come a very long way and made tremendous progress. This makes it even more peculiar that the same complaints continue time after time: women are not being provided with the same opportunities as their male counterparts in business; there is a glass ceiling; there is not enough female representation on the boards of public companies; quotas are necessary in order to redress the balance between senior men and women in business; sexism is rife in the City; if more women had been on the boards of banks, the financial crisis would never have happened; and so the list goes on.  

At the heart of this complaint is an inherent assumption that the smaller number of senior women in business versus male counterparts is a result of discrimination. This implies that individuals holding the position of Chairman at public companies overlook female board candidates in favour of equal or lesser male board candidates. This assumption is fundamentally flawed. At the heart of the role of a board of directors for a public company is its fiduciary duty to shareholders. Public companies are ultimately owned by shareholders and are, therefore, answerable to them. One of the key objectives of a board is to maximise shareholder value. Other typical duties of a board of directors include governing the organisation by establishing board policies and objectives; selecting, appointing, supporting and reviewing the performance of the Chief Executive; ensuring the availability of adequate financial resources; approving annual budgets; accounting to stakeholders for the performance of the organisation; and setting the salaries and compensation of company management. These duties are broad and complex, all the more so when the companies in question are sprawling multi-jurisdictional establishments with many different types of businesses sitting beneath the umbrella name of the public company. Boards need, therefore, to be comprised of senior individuals who have the necessary and appropriate experience and skills to carry out this role. The Chairman of the board needs individuals upon whom he / she can rely to maintain sound judgement in pressurised, complex situations, and to draw on their usually vast experience. It is simply ridiculous to imply that these serious professionals are wilfully ignoring female candidates because they prefer to elect a male peer from the “old boys’ network”. To do so would potentially undermine their fiduciary duty to shareholders because the board would not be equipped necessarily to fulfil adequately those duties. While studies have indeed demonstrated that properly diversified boards are less prone to the mistakes of “group think”, and more likely to increase shareholder value, improve the flow of creative thought and encourage a greater understanding of customers and employees, this must be correct as long as the quality and calibre of the skillset of a board is not compromised for the sake of diversity.  This is a path that we are dangerously close to since Brussels mandated that at least 40% of the board seats of large European companies need to be occupied by women by 2020. The EU-wide plan will introduce procedures whereby companies may be coerced into hiring a female candidate over an equally qualified male candidate. Whilst there is no problem with this in principle, since the candidates are equal, it is a very small step from this to mandatory quotas. Thankfully, Brussels has stopped short of this, amidst a cacophony of objection from eleven countries, one of the most vocal of which was the UK.

One of the biggest problems with quotas is that, ultimately, they risk undermining the achievement and legitimacy of women who sit currently on boards, and have been elected through a meritocratic process. One of the most frequently heard arguments in favour of quotas is that “the men are not listening”. This aligns all of the responsibility with “the men”. It is up to women as much, if not more so, as it is up to men to correct the balance, if they want to. For successful, respected businesswomen such as Helena Morrisey to advocate a quota of 30% women on the boards of public companies whilst simultaneously explaining that in order to be successful as a career woman, one must marry a man who is content to be a house husband, and relinquish his own ambition, does no favours to women who would like to hold a senior position one day. Another argument in favour of female board quotas is that, once on the board, women would be more likely to hire more women. There are two flaws to this argument. Firstly, this would be replacing the old boys’ network with the old girls’ network. To call this progress would be hypocrisy of the worst kind. That the best person for a position should always be chosen seems to be missed entirely by this argument. Secondly, the idea of a sisterhood is a falsehood. In business, it is survival of the fittest. The default setting of serious professionals is “ambitious”, “competitive” and perhaps sometimes “aggressive” and “ruthless” but certainly not “nice”. Everyone is measured by their relative success. Of course you have to prove yourself. Respect is not given freely; it must be earned. This is true for men as well as for women. Whilst I have encountered numerous women during my career who are incredibly supportive of fellow women, I have encountered just as many who are equally, sometimes more, inclined to backstab and stand on one another as their male counterparts. I have also encountered numerous men who have been incredibly supportive of my professional development. The stark truth is: there are men in business who do, and do not, support women and there are women in business who do, and do not, support women. That is called life; it is not called inequality.

In my experience during ten years as an investment banker, the women who want to break through the glass ceiling have done and are doing so. The uncomfortable truth is that many women are simply not willing to make the sacrifices required to make it to the top. It is, actually, impossible for women to “have it all”. It is equally impossible for men to “have it all”. The fundamental difference between these two statements is that men do not want it all, and they have never done so. Women need to realise this.

Instead of fighting for quotas, and bemoaning how unfair and unequal life is, women need to toughen up and demonstrate that we are capable of effecting change instead of simply expecting it. We need to stop talking and start doing. Some of the results of the recent election in the United States of America are examples of this. Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts has just become the first state female senator to be voted into office; Representative Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin is the nation’s first openly gay Senator; Deb Fisher is the first woman to represent Nebraska in the Senate since 1954; and the state of New Hampshire sent the nation’s first all-female congressional delegation. These women have fought for their positions in society by demonstrating that they are worthy. The current British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has encountered criticism for failing to meet targets for female MPs. Margaret Thatcher, the first ever female Prime Minister, neither introduced nor adhered to quotas for women. Despite this, the representation of female MPs had increased by 37% from the time she came to power (27 female MPs) to the time she left Downing Street in 1990 (43female MPs). It is important to note that this increase was not because Margaret Thatcher embraced the sisterhood and promoted more women. It was because by succeeding as first female prime minister, and demonstrating that it could be done, she inspired a generation of women to believe that it was possible.  Shirley Williams, who encountered Thatcher when she was a Labour Cabinet minister during the 1970s has commented: “She did very little by being a woman, she did it by being herself…”. Julie Kirkbride, who was inspired by Margaret Thatcher and became a Conservative MP, explained that Thatcher demonstrated “if you are the right person and are the best, there is no glass ceiling”. Thatcher stated early in her career in 1952 – “Should a woman arise equal to the task, I say let her have an equal chance with the men for leading Cabinet posts…”. The most important word here is “equal”, reiterated twice. Thatcher did not ask for quotas, nor did she introduce targets for the number of female MPs in her Cabinet. In fact, by 1982, Thatcher commented in a lecture that “the battle for women’s rights has largely been won…The days when they were demanded and discussed in strident tones should be gone forever. I hate those strident tones we hear from Women’s Libbers”. I think Margaret Thatcher had it right. Instead of pleading to be treated equally, she got on with it, proved she was as good, if not better, than any of her male counterparts at that time. One can only wonder what Thatcher must think about Nadine Dorries choosing to risk her political career to disappear to the jungle for the reality television show “I’m a Celebrity – Get Me Out of Here”. Whether a male MP would do this or not, who knows? The bottom line is that Nadine Dorries was in a position of responsibility. By disappearing to the jungle to appear on a frivolous show, and have headlines written about her that include “Nadine Dorries munches her way through camel toe and ostrich anus”, is an abnegation of her responsibility and a demonstration of  a wilful disregard for her constituents. It is unacceptable and deeply unhelpful to women.

The sense of entitlement demonstrated by many women now, and the misunderstood notion that equality means promotion without the requisite skills, experience or behaviour is reflective of the sad situation in broader society where many young girls’ aspirations are to “be famous” or to “be a celebrity”. Many celebrities are famous for the sake of being famous, having achieved very little of tangible or measurable value. They add very little to society. The only way to increase the number of senior women in business is to teach young girls that an education is one of the most valuable tools with which we can equip ourselves. Girls should learn that squandering an education is profligate and wasteful. Girls should take note of Malala Yousafazi, the fifteen year old Pakistani girl who was shot and seriously injured because of her fight against the Taliban for girls to be educated. This girl is someone to be truly admired and watched in the future. At fifteen, Malala Yousafazi has proved her tenacity and courage. By the end of her current difficult journey, she will have likely forgotten more about bravery and resilience than most of us will, thankfully, ever know.

Our society has a chasm in its approach towards women. At one end of the spectrum, it rages that there is not enough female representation at senior levels of business. At the other, it encourages girls and young women to embrace popular culture on an unprecedented level and encourages the celebration of vacuous parasitic personalities. Until this imbalance is redressed, there will continue to be a gender gap. The biggest mistake that we can make is to try to attribute this to discrimination instead of acknowledging a) that there are fundamental flaws in the way in which society encourages the aspirations of young women; and b) the uncomfortable truth that even if the imbalance is redressed, there may still not be equal numbers of competent and qualified women and men. Perhaps, inconvenient and uncomfortable though it may be, some women are not cut out for a life in a serious and often ruthless business environment.

Polly Courtney, the self-described “accidental author” has written extensively about how liberating it was to leave a life in the City, which had been one of “monotony, sexism, long hours and loneliness”. Having started life as a junior investment banker, this is something I understand, apart from the second point. Monotony, long hours and loneliness are part of the sacrifice that has to be made to survive. The life of a junior investment banker is tough. The environment is hostile; it is aggressive and it is not for shrinking violets. You will be shouted at if you make a mistake; you were hired because you were supposed to be smart enough to get it right. This intolerance of error is not specific to women. It is specific to all junior investment bankers. Incompetence is not tolerated. I started my investment banking career at Lehman Brothers. We were a class of 69 graduates, of varying shades of colour, multiple creeds, male, female, gay and straight. We were so diverse that Lehman Brothers even had a transgender committee. None of this mattered. At 3am with a pitch due at 9am, it did not matter who you were or what you looked like. You were at the coalface, working yourself to the bone. Everyone who has been a junior investment banker has a story such as Polly Courtney; everyone has made restaurant bookings, gone to get coffees, and been woken up at 3am to return to the office. I had to wait for four hours in a taxi once to deliver a presentation to a Managing Director because his letterbox was too small to post it and I was not allowed to ring the doorbell to wake him up. This happened to at least six of my male counterparts as well so it was difficult to attribute it to sexism. If you succeed in making it through the first five years, you understand suddenly that the training, experience and knowledge gained is a wonderful platform from which to build a successful career across many different fields and industries. As a case in point, despite Polly having spent only two years as an investment banker, she has used it to launch herself successfully as an author. For women to claim that the City is sexist is, more often than not, an excuse to explain their departure from a job with which they are unwilling or unable to cope. I agree with whoever was the glamorous blonde in the suit who seduced Polly Courtney to a City life. It is not all about the money. It is the fast pace, the exciting work and the opportunity to be a part of global transactions 24/7.

Investment banks make a huge effort to recruit young female graduates. The mantra of diversity has become almost obsessive in some institutions. I attended multiple recruitment events to try to attract the best and most promising female talent to a career as an M&A investment banker. It was an insurmountable challenge because many female graduates, regardless of ability, were not interested because of stories about sexism, long hours and a macho aggressive culture. I find it unacceptable to criticise the City so unjustifiably and then expect it to reward us with tokenist board positions. Given the paltry numbers of women who enter graduate schemes, such as those offered at investment banks, it is hardly surprising that, through a process of natural attrition, the endgame is a very reduced pool of senior female talent.

It is important to note, however, that this small pool of senior female talent is comprised of women who are talented, intelligent, tenacious and resilient. They have proved their worth in a male dominated world and, by and large, are hugely respected. All of the successful senior women I know share the same hallmarks: they are consummate professionals; they are excellent at their jobs; they are feminine and empathetic when necessary; they are tough and uncompromising when necessary; they do not expect to be treated differently because they are women; they are confident in their own ability; they enjoy career longevity. Again, Margaret Thatcher comes to mind. Thatcher’s advertising adviser, Lord Bell, commented that her “constant femininity shined in the way she dealt with issues” and that “she sometimes used it to her advantage”. Women today could learn a great deal from Thatcher. Lord Bell added in a 2005 interview: “She was in a world dominated by men and one of the things men are very bad at is handling women”.

Instead of pushing for meaningless quotas, and damaging the bandwagon onto which they are jumping, it would be sensible for women to stop complaining and focus instead on working hard, doing their job, impressing the people who need to be impressed. Serious professional men are more than willing to engage with and promote serious professional women. People work for people, and smart people want to have the smartest, most intelligent people working for and with them, irrespective of their gender. The sooner women realise this, the sooner we can stop perpetuating our own glass ceiling. Ultimately, it is women who need to understand finally that equality must equal equality.