Negotiating your right as women to be ‘Top Dog’ in the work place

Should there be Quotas for women on Boards??

The European Union is pushing a proposal which would require company boards to be made up of at least 40 per cent women.  It appears agreeing with the proposal has stirred a very diverse range of reactions.

Positive discrimination is illegal in the UK so assuming the quota goes ahead; there will have to be a review of British law. The debate seems to be very intense, with Britain leading the countries that regard the proposed rule as counterproductive and unworkable. Should the proposal go ahead it would undoubtedly spark conflict in the work place as men look on as they watch their female colleague receive the promotion he's worked years to achieve, simply because of her gender.

A poll conducted by Management Today asked 317 individuals ‘Are you in favor of the 40% minimum quota for women on boards?’ Of those who responded, 66% said they were not in favor of the quota whilst the remaining third (34%), said that they would prefer to see a quota in place. This poll surely speaks for itself? I myself would like to think that, as a women, I am given a position based on my abilities, skills and experience and not just to fill a space or to meet a quota.

Arguments in favor of this quota include the need for more effective gender equality and quotas are potentially the next logical step in closing the gender gap. Implementing quotas would ensure that change actually happens. But can an initiative which equips women for board positions be a positive thing? The objective for promoting more women to the boardroom should be more than a ‘tick the box’ exercise in demonstrating diversity. Surely a board with diversity provides a better understanding of the organisations customers and teams, avoids so called ‘group think’ and encourages a wider scope of creative thought. 

I’d be really interested in hearing your thoughts on this… How effective would quotas be in bringing diversity to organisations or will it simple encourage negative attitudes?

Mick Philpott and ‘The Jeremy Kyle’ age of social conflict resolution

Social conflict theory- is a Marxist-based social theory which argues that individuals and groups (social classes) within society have differing amounts of material and non-material resources (the wealthy vs. the poor) and that the more powerful groups use their power in order to exploit groups with less power.

The nation looked on in horror as Mick Philpott became a ‘celebrity’ (link) as a result of appearing on The Jeremy Kyle show, only to be recently convicted of the manslaughter of six of his children who were killed after a premeditated fire in their Derby home.

The disgraced father of 17 appeared on The Jeremy Kyle show in 2007 where he shamelessly admitted to raking in more than £38,000 in benefits a year. Sharing his bizarre and unorthodox lifestyle with more than a million viewers across the country Philpott went on to appear on ITV’s daytime TV show, This Morning and even featured in a documentary with former MP Ann Widdecombe. 

But why have we allowed ourselves to be dubbed ‘The Jeremy Kyle generation?’ We watch on, some on a daily basis, as guests flood “the stage” with their misfortunes, yielding clenched fists and heaps of bad language!  We openly watch on in the hope that the show will be riddled with conflict and poor negotiation as the guests are interviewed, or rather, intimidated by a host earning more than £1million a year. 

I find myself asking is it ever beneficial for these people to appear on national television, airing their dirty laundry and secretly seeking help and attention!? They seek answers to some of life’s most challenging questions… Who is the father of my child? And does the name I had tattooed on my neck still mean anything? 

What does this say about the UK and our ability to resolve conflict rationally and effectively? There is surely some benefit to conflict: As long as it can be resolved effectively, it can lead to personal and professional development. However, I have to emphasize my concerns that reality T.V, including The Jeremy Kyle show is making entertainment out of what can sometimes be extremely violent and aggressive behavior. 

There could also be some argument to suggest that Philpott was given numerous, all expenses paid for opportunities to appear on television, which fueled him with the attitude that he could push the boundaries of public humiliation to his advantage. Unfortunately, playing with television appearances led him to play with fire which ultimately cost the lives of his 6 children.

So where should we draw the line? Where will we be in 10 years time? Shows such as Jeremy Kyle are only making social conflict more evident…

Churchill said: “Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak. Courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.” I fear The Jeremy Kyle Show would be boring if the guests followed the advice of our nations predeceases, and that is a scary thought… 

Let me know your thoughts?