The World Economic Forum, an annual meeting in the reclusive mountains of Davos in Switzerland, is a swanky affair. An invite-only, black-tie, sipping-hundred-year-old-whiskey-while-tacking-down-billion-dollar-deals kind of swanky affair. It’s attended by prime ministers, bankers, business tycoons, and other movers and shakers of the global elite.
The only people who don’t attend, it seems, are women. Making up a maximum 17 percent of participants on any given year, their numbers have been paltry at best. That is, until now.
As the Guardian reports:
The forum’s “strategic partners”—a group of about 100 companies including Barclays, Goldman Sachs, and Deutsche Bank—have been told they must bring along at least one woman in every group of five senior executives sent to the high-profile event.
In short, the WEF is enacting a gender quota to avoid a perennial sausagefest.
Here’s Saadia Zahidi, head of the gender parity program:
The World Economic Forum annual meeting engages the highest levels of leadership from a variety of sectors, and participation figures are a reflection of the scarcity of women in this external pool.
The reactions to this new policy have varied. While some argue that this is a genuine effort by the WEF to inject some much-needed diversity into its elite ranks, others assert that the gesture feels empty without women having earned the right.
Perhaps the most insightful criticism is the claim that the WEF is only addressing a symptom, not the systemic lack of women in the business world as a whole. As Chris from Ameriblog states:
So far, the numbers have been pathetic. But of course, so are the numbers in the ranks of the “strategic partners” who dominate the event. The banking industry was always macho and since the crisis, it now has even fewer women in management. Northern Europe takes the issue seriously, but outside of there, few countries (the U.S. included) have made progress.
What do you think, readers? Is this move by the WEF pandering, or is it a step in the right direction? Is it a step in the wrong direction with the right intentions? You tell us.
I personally must have been pacing along one single day considering the exact secrets of the world. My partner and i came upon an actual vivid light in the jungle. It had been not a single thing like I personally previously had ever previously observed preceding. The situation was in fact violet and in addition blue having a green colouring. Next We acquired a real stone in which talked toward everybody with the help of the most miraculous sound of which I really had truly experienced during all of my living. It was basically an important breath including good air… Read more »
Of course it’s a good idea. It’s a demand that companies who participate (and they can decide not to, so no-one is forced to anything) get out of the habit of looking for the right *man* to send when picking teams for things like that. And, no – big corporations like Goldman-Sachs will not be in the situation that they have no qualified women around. It’s a call to think differently, a call that will hopefully nudge the companies in the right direction. Remember that the Davos meeting is specifically about thinking different, stepping out of the box, and finding… Read more »
Of course it’s pandering, it’s not equality of opportunity but rather equality of outcome.
Where is the evidence of discrimination?
Are there as many women willing to give up their private lives to reach for the top?
Is there any evidence or certainty that a quota system will ensure the best people are in attendance?
It’s just feminist theory, but short on evidence.
If the forum can invite 94 faith healers to the forum, then I have no problem with a quota system that allows women to be better represented given their real contribution to industry. I have worked with countless women within organisations and the effort they put into their work is phenomenal, they are ambitious, motivated and highly capable, and I find it hard believing that in this day and age, there are concerns being expressed about how women have nothing to contribute. Women work hard, and because they are not in positions of high power or visibility does not mean… Read more »
Are these women who are being invited genuine business leaders or are they just “chumped-up” executive assistants? There is the question that everyone needs to ask. Will these women actually have something to contribute, or are they there just for window dressing to fill the quota? This will not help the cause of resolving equity. What if a company is not ran by a sexist group of officers/managers, but it’s genuinely a case of where women have not aspired to reach executive level or are genuinely not qualified? Why should these companies be penalized? This is similar to the new… Read more »
Pandering.
If women earn a spot at the convention, they’ll be there. Quotas are stupid and sexist.
U, Mam are right on The Money. Love reading your stuff. There’s hope for us all. Love and Best Wishes from London. X