More women in the top jobs would boost the economy (stuff.co.nz). The article po

Question

More women in the top jobs would boost the economy (stuff.co.nz). The article points out for the first time, financial evidence that if New Zealand businesses were to employ more women in top management positions they would see a financial benefit. The article intones that diversity of management positions based on gender is financially beneficial to a business.

While there are some compelling numbers in this article that predict a substantial financial gain can be made by having women in top management positions. I would question if this financial gain is because of the perceived gender pay gap, more women in management positions being paid less equates to increased profit margins, or is it because women work more efficiently than men and can get more done in a day?

I don’t agree that businesses should be employing people based on a strong affirmative action or a diversity policy based around gender. I believe the best person for the job should be employed regardless of these factors. If we are not employing the best people for the job and solely employing a person because they are “female” then we can strongly undermine the potential of the position. If a strong affirmative action is the determining factor when employing then there is the potential that it can create underperformance in the long term if the employed female is in fact not fully qualified for the role they are undertaking. This then creates a long-lasting stigma on all “females” if they fail to deliver; females in this role underperform, this may lead to them dropping out of employment altogether.

This affirmative action would correct the gender inequality in business which the article is supporting, but does nothing to address the problem of why women are not in top management positions. A reference is made to more affordable “childcare requirements”. Surely top management positions would have a salary that could easily afford childcare costs if required. Actions based on the promotion and recognising of female skill sets when roles are available would be a more sustainable long term approach. Adoption of smarter family focussed policies providing more flexibility in work hours and recognising the family duties that both male and females have to play as parents would greatly enhance the opportunities for women to pursue higher level career positions.

In the past, women were often not educated to the same levels as men in New Zealand, dropping out of school to run households and look after younger siblings. You could argue that an affirmative action or diversity policy to employ females is a policy response to right the past injustices or as compensation for the lesser education opportunities that were imposed on females 75-100 years ago. However, this has now corrected itself with equal education opportunities for all with New Zealand and I don’t see this as a valid argument for discrimination.

I have personally experienced the application of a diversity policy recently. I was told by a recruitment manager when applying for a role, that I had the relevant job experiences, education and skill set for the role and that the company had a gender diversity policy which I met. I thought about this for a while and while it is great to be on the right side of the diversity policy, I began to wonder what they tell the male candidates? Do they simply say there was someone more suitable for the role? While my skills and experience were measured up against other applicants; this was a weak affirmative action which still feels like discrimination based on gender and would always make me consider if I was only employed because I was a female.

One thing that is not actually mentioned in this article is what action is going to be taken other than businesses “now is your opportunity to get with the programme” (Stuff.co.nz). Is the release of the article just merely to appease and demonstrate that “we” have done some research? Westpac are in a position where they can take credit for producing a report, and without any further action, the company can be seen as a leader in the public arena for championing gender equality in top management positions.

write a constructive criticism feedback on this draft

Explanation / Answer

Women long been suppressed by the male dominated society and now the time has come to provide some reservation to the women in the employment so that they can gain self confidence and stand on their own. But reservation should not come on account of low wages and lack of training. If there is available of both male and female candidate for the post, then in case of equal skill women should be given priority over men.

Recent surge in the entrepreneurship by the women also indicates that refusal in the current system force them to start on their own. So mere experience of one of candidate saying he is declined only because he is male doesn’t stand valid. Women are always tried to keep in check by giving low appraisal in performance review. Women has always been declined for the system to raise voice against their oppression in the society. And only way they can do it is by being part of the system first. So its quite important for them to get the opportunity in the job first. This is called privilege. They should get the privilege of working besides male. Only then they can raise voice and can have control over important decision of life.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse M
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.