3 ms·

Is there an idea where to go with these quotas in the long run? I mean as I understand it, the numbers are just pulled out of thin air. So we have a company, f

Is there an idea where to go with these quotas in the long run? I mean as I understand it, the numbers are just pulled out of thin air. So we have a company, following the however implemented rules and has, let's say has 60% of group A and 40% of B on their board. But maybe the ideal quota is 70% / 30%. Or 10% / 90%. Or the standard deviation is so high that there is a high probability that everything from 20 % / 80% to 70% / 30% was achieved without any bias but just because of differntly distributed skillsets. Point is, by setting a quota like that without any research, you're gonna end up with one group having it statistically harder to get their well deserved board place as the other, which is the problem that we're trying to fight in the first place, right? And now it is locked in stone, because abandoning the quota would have big political implications. I understand that it is an attractive short term fix and that we might not have good other solutions, but where are we going with it?

repolfx 8y ago
No, the "problem" they're trying to solve is that women want more power and money. Have you noticed how pushes for "diversity" always ignore jobs that are dangerous and unskilled? Brickies are 95%+ male, you don't read about the importance of setting quotas for female bricklayers do you? Primary age teaching is essentially a female only job at this point, we don't see governments imposing quotas for male teachers. Board seats and other senior management roles however get enormous pressure from feminist campaign groups - because that's where the money and power is.