Many people are probably aware of the recent events which resulted in the departure of the Chairman of advertising company Saatchi and Saatchi, Mr Kevin Roberts.
Roberts was in the news after giving an interview in which he was asked why relatively few of the most senior positions within the advertising industry were held by women. Roberts’ answer was essentially to defend his industry’s record, by suggesting that the answer was not due to lack of opportunity for women, but due to the choices that individual professionals were making. Specifically, Mr Roberts claimed that it was his experience that women in the advertising industry did not tend to have the “
vertical ambition” to take the very highest positions in the industry, and that they preferred to remain in technical roles.
Aside from these remarks, Mr Roberts was in fact highly complimentary of women working in his industry, and was openly critical of what he described as the values by which men tended to judge themselves, ie favouring rank over happiness and other factors which he suggested women in his industry tended to favour.
In addition to these remarks, when asked to comment on statements made by a female advertising executive called Cindy Gallop, which had been to the effect that the advertising industry is prejudice against women, Roberts remarked that he regarded Gallop’s comments as being motivated by an interest in self advertisement.
There is no doubt that Roberts made a mistake in responding to the question about Gallop as he did. Because even if he was correct, then all he succeeded in doing by being dragged into what appeared to arguably amount to a personal spat, was to give Gallop further publicity. Furthermore, Gallop’s response was to invite criticism of Roberts’ other comments, to be made via twitter. And indeed, the responses which she received, which typically criticised the behaviour of “
white men” in business, and stated that the issues referred to by Roberts were “
not negotiable”, alarmed Saatchi’s parent company sufficiently for them to sack Mr Roberts. And they didn’t stop there. The company’s senior management published a series of comments criticising Roberts and his remarks, such as the comment by Publicis Communications’ Chief Executive who wrote, “
Kevin's remarks were expressed in a way that I find offensive in terms of language and tonality. Behaviour like this is simply unacceptable in our Groupe”. No holding back there !
My initial reaction to this news story, was one of concern. My initial view was that Roberts’ comments were actually generally balanced, constructive, positive and informative, and I considered the response from the parent company both alarming and – in terms of their heavy handed criticisism of this previously highly respected colleague – somewhat distasteful.
In fact, the story reminded me of other recent news items which have related to womens’ rights in business and industry, such as the highly publicised spat involving the response of a female barrister to a comment made to her by a male solicitor that her photograph was “stunning”, within his reply to her request to join his Linkedin network. I can certainly see how the solicitor’s remark in this instance could be considered inappropriate, however I would suggest that many people would consider one of the following reactions to having received such a message :
a) be pleased by the friendly nature of the comment, and respond seeking to develop a personable business relationship
b) accept the comment as a compliment and don’t respond
c) reply, stating something like, "
Dear ----, Thank you for accepting my request. I also hope that there are opportunities to work together at some point. Whilst writing, I would add that I noticed your comment about my photograph. Whilst I am sure that this was made with good intentions, I personally find such comments unwelcome, and would request that you desist from making further similar comments, which might be open to misinterpretation. I hope that this does not cause offence. Many thanks once again for accepting my connection, and I look forward to the possibility of us doing business together at some point. Kind regards, ----"
The barrister in this instance did not choose one of these options, but instead chose to accuse the solicitor publically in the national press and media of sexist and repressive behaviour, and publically threaten to report him to his regulatory authority unless he made a full public written apology to her. For many, the barrister’s actions represented – at best – an unjustifiable over reaction, however again, she was given unfaltering support from womens’ rights groups and consultancies specialising in the rights of women in business, within the media. An example of a typical response from such groups being that of an organisation by the name of FabianWomen’sNetwork, which wrote, “
Take a look at how fantastic…CRProudman handled social media sexism”.
In both of the instances referred to above, men appeared to be portrayed relatively unfavourably, individuals have been exposed to very bad treatment, and the responses of organisations which specialise in the promotion of womens’ rights have appeared unbalanced and at times malicious. This is of no help to anybody.
An issue closely related to that discussed by Roberts, is that of the average pay of men and women. Statistics are regularly published on this matter, and they show that although the gap between the average man’s pay and the average woman’s pay has reduced considerably, there is still a significant percentage gap. Organisations such as the Fawcett Society in the UK, campaign specifically on this issue, and they cite as the reasons for mens’ average pay being higher than womens’ average pay as follows :
- Discrimination
- Unequal caring responsibilities
- A divided labour market
- Men in the most senior roles
And on this basis, the Fawcett Society is currently campaigning for the introduction of fines for companies who do not close their gender pay gap.
http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/policy-research/the-gender-pay-gap/
And this is not untypical of reactions to published data which records mens’ average pay as being higher than womens’ average pay. In fact, such figures are often presented in a way which appears to intend to solicit the response of an assumption that the difference between the figures must represent discrimination and men being paid more than women for doing the same job. More closely examined data however suggests that this is not the case, and that equality legislation, as introduced for example in the UK, has succeeded in removing pay discrimination between genders, and that broadly speaking men and women receive the same pay for doing the same jobs.
In fact however, there are other factors at play in headline pay statistics, and they are not limited to the ones identified by the Fawcett Society. Indeed, in order to understand the labour market, and changes taking place in society, one needs to look initially at how the roles of men and women in society have developed and changed over the centuries.
Throughout the ages, men and women have worked together in partnership, in the way most suited by their biological forms. Men generally took the lead roles in hunting for food, and in fighting wars which have beset civilisation since the beginning. In fact, contrary to the feminist movement’s portrayal of men as the oppressor of women since the year dot, what they were actually doing was protecting women, and thereby protecting the species. Some might even argue that women had it relatively easy during these periods, by being provided physical protection and safety by men. But whatever view one has, it can be seen that there was never a ‘battle’ of the sexes, but a mutual battle of survival as men and women together combated the elements, struggles for food, invasions and whatever else the cruel world could throw at them.
More lately men have tended to have undertaken more labour intensive and dangerous jobs in the work place than women. Indeed, even today, in the 21st century, men are more than 20 times more likely to die in the workplace than women (
http://www.alcumusgroup.com/male-workers-20-times-likely-females-die-work/) . This is a statistic that seems to have passed the Fawcett Society by, but in case they are reading and would like that statistic in percentage terms, for the avoidance of doubt it means that a man is 2000 % more likely to die at work today than a woman is.
The reason for these different allocations of roles throughout our development of a species and beyond, is that these were the roles that the respective genders were best suited to. Indeed, to an extent, they were the roles that biology evolved us into having as a species. Whatever the political correctness of such a statement, it is an inescapable fact. Men evolved as the leader of the species during our most difficult periods of history, because they were the physically stronger gender. They took us into war. They led the hunt for food. And as a result, men developed the role as the leader of the group, both within the family unit and within society as a whole.
And these structures have remained in place ever since. And since the age of the dinosaurs, and since the age of conquest and invasion, the structures have become less and less necessary. We haven’t been a nation of hunters since around the days of Robin Hood. We haven’t been successfully invaded for probably about as long. Yes, there were still centuries where the vast majority of work was highly dangerous, and perhaps it is not surprising that society was not pressured to change the established structures until comparatively recently. But now our workers don’t spend months at sea battling scurvy, pirates and the elements, and we don’t spend half of our lives down a mine or at the workhouse. The last major war, involving a substantial proportion of the male population in armed conflict, finished 70 years ago.
But due to the success of the partnership between men and women, society has now evolved – in developed countries at least – to a stage where it no longer has to worry on a daily basis about hunting for food, or swinging axes at one another, or sailing the oceans stuck in cramped, dangerous, stinking gallies, and we have the luxury of turning our attention to more luxurious matters, such as gender pay ratios, and we can adapt the roles of genders in society accordingly.
Furthermore, a review of history will also reveal that almost all leading painters, poets, mathematicians, philosophers, pianists, were men. Is this right ? Is this because men are naturally better at these things than women ? Well, in most or all cases, the answer is simply ‘no’. The reason that men took the lead in these professions, is that as man was the warrior leader, it was natural that all occupations focused on the man. This did not represent the oppression of women, it is just the way things were at that time. Men went into an occupation – whether that was as soldier or artist – and women tended to stay at home and focus on raising the family and tending the home. Was that necessary ? I can’t see why. Was it fair ? Possibly not. And this must change.
So now we are finally making changes to our society, to make them more applicable to our environment and to the benefit of all. It is right and beneficial for society for those changes to be made. And they are being made. Legislation has been introduced to make discrimination against genders (ie women) illegal. It is nearly 50 years since it was illegal in the UK for men and women to be paid different amounts for doing the same thing. Opportunities are being opened up in business. Indeed, companies are generally making positive efforts to try to employ as many women as possible, and for them to move to the most senior roles, as quickly as possible. Does this amount to discrimination against men ? Well, possible technically, yes. But I would advocate that it is a price well worth paying. Because as it stands business is missing out on a wealth of talent. The best manager I have ever worked for was a woman. The solicitor I worked with that I respected the most was a woman. The politician that I respect the most was a woman. I have personally been more impressed with the talent and ability of proportionally more of my female colleagues than my male colleagues. There are many great women leaders out there, and many incredibly talented professionals. And the more that they can be encouraged into business, and into leadership roles, the better it will be not just for the individual woman, but for business as well, not just because of their individual talent, but because of what they can add in terms of personality and ability to individual companies and to the business sector as a whole. And the more women that can be seen to be working in senior positions, and often in roles traditionally associated with men, the more women will want to follow. The quicker the whole process will happen.
But there are limits on this process. And in spite of the comments of Publicis Group, and of many feminist bloggers and twitterers around the world, and contrary to the explanation provided by the Fawcett Society, this is likely to be at least in part for reasons such as or similar to those raised by Kevin Roberts for which he got the sack. Because I for one believe Kevin Roberts. I believe his industry expertise, and I believe him when he says that in his experience women have not tended to step up to the plate to take the most senior positions in that industry. And there are several reasons why this might be the case, and also (and perhaps more significantly) why the fact that we are not even now seeing a full gender spread across and throughout professions, does not necessarily mean – and in light of the very strenuous regulatory, legislative and social pressure on business to be seen to advance and expand the roles of women – is not likely to mean, that this is as a result of discrimination. The real issue here is that once full equal opportunity is provided (which I believe HAS been achieved), that does not mean that results will show an immediate even distribution immediately. This is for two reasons.
Firstly, changes take time. What has taken place here in society is a genuine revolution. After centuries, millennia, of a separation of roles based on gender, in a relative blink of an eye, society has changed the rules of the game. In fact its turned it on its head. Rather than putting up barriers against women, it is now ushering them in. But, for so long now, women have been used to seeing men do one thing and women do another. It will take time, for women to feel that the normal thing for them to do, is not to follow the routes of their mothers and grand mothers, but of their fathers and grandfathers. For some, the realisation and self actualisation of those opportunities will come quickly, but for many it will take longer. And just as equal opportunity in dangerous professions such as construction, and active efforts of the construction industry to recruit female workers, has had little effect on the gender ratio in that industry, meaning that – as mentioned above – a man is still 20 times more likely to die at work than a woman, so too will it take time for women to make the cultural shift from tending towards their traditional roles, and venturing further and further into what was a man’s realm. This is what happens when there is a revolution. Even after the revolution has taken place, it takes time for people to come to terms with it; even those people for whose direct benefit the revolution occurred. So when Kevin Roberts observes that in his experience women are currently less likely to want to take the senior positions, I believe him. It will come, but it will take time, and no matter how many times, and how hard womens’ rights bloggers etc bash businesses over the head, it will make no difference. Attention needs to be focused elsewhere; to show young women what opportunities there are; to encourage them to take them; to make them believe and realise that it is not only acceptable for them to take them, but desirable. To inspire women to follow new paths. I believe that Kevin Roberts’ comments, for which he was roundly criticised and sacked, in some ways do that. Perhaps he didn’t go far enough in his comments. Perhaps instead of saying “women aren’t doing this, theyre happy doing that”, he should be saying “women aren’t doing this. And we find it frustrating. Because women make great leaders, and we want them to lead.” But regardless, I firmly believe that what he did say was still closer to being helpful than those who constantly berate business leaders, and “white men” for not doing enough.
The other reason why a full change isn’t implemented immediately, is that – controversial as it may be to say it – there are differences between men and women. That’s obviously a very broad brush generalisation, and we are all different as individuals, but nevertheless there are character traits that are generally more pronounced on the whole in one gender than another. How we deal with pressure, our organisational skills, our people skills. These may all be areas in which the genders tend to be weaker or stronger than the other, and simply the type of things that we enjoy doing. And that – aside from issues of physical differences – will lead, even in the long term, to genders not making identical choices. There is also the significant issue of the fact that females have developed biologically to give birth to children. That is a matter that we can not change by either legislation or social pressure. And how that will be addressed in future will be interesting to see. And the extent to which all of these differences will effect the extent to which differences between roles of men and women in business and industry will remain or differ in the long run, will be very interesting to see. But whether it means that in 100 years time there will be more top business leaders who are women than men, or the other way around, I don’t believe anyone can know. But the one thing that I hope for is that everyone will be there on merit, and that people will be in whatever positions they are through free choice and in order to best suit their abilities, rather than due to increasing amounts of restrictions being placed on society to ensure that people continue to be identified by their race, gender, age and whatever else, and allocated roles accordingly in order to keep those counting such irrelevant matters happy.
In the mean time, I believe that whilst it’s important to continue to encourage women to take the new opportunities available to them, I also believe that it is important to be fair to all during the transition period.
As a human being, I am grateful to my male forebearers for protecting my female forebearers. I am grateful to my female forebearers for looking after their husbands and their children. I can understand how some women who feel that their female forebearers have been oppressed by their male forebearers, might feel as if they have an axe to grind against men alive today, even if I don’t believe they are right to do so.
Just as I and other men are owed no favour on account of previous generations of men tackling large mammals for food, and fighting off invading hordes, I and they are owed no retribution on account of man’s historical dominance of the arts and sciences. Just as I have never fought off a Viking invasion, or shot across trenches in Belgium, neither have I oppressed women, inadvertently or otherwise. But regardless, what history has shown, is that humanity succeeds when men and women work together. For most of our history, that has been in very different roles. That is changing. Men and women will henceforth work and play in much more similar manners. There will be opportunities for all. And it’s vital in my opinion, that this continues to be a collaborative effort. Men and women are not best fighting one another, but working together, and this must be the way forward.
For this reason, it is neither helpful nor acceptable for gender terror campaigns to be launched against individuals such as Mr Roberts, and such as the lawyer who complimented another lawyers’ photograph. If they have done wrong, then they should be put right. But in a constructive manner, not a vindictive or backstabbing one. Similarly, it is not acceptable for womens’ rights bloggers and tweeters to make negative comments about “white men”. Nor is it helpful for them to respond to discussions by simply saying that gender issues are “not negotiable”. Nor is it helpful for womens’ rights movements to campaign solely on selectively selected issues that mislead and only tell a part of the story, or to put undue pressure on individuals and organisations who are already bending over backwards to help. Decisions need to be made on an informed basis, not the presentation of a graph with two lines on, and a barrow full of vitriol. We are within a transition period at the moment, with opportunities having been opened open and attitudes in society changed. And whilst the top female talent needs to be taken to the top as quickly as possible, until the time when the female talent pool is as populated through choice to the extent that the male talent pool has been, care needs to be taken to ensure that promotions continue to be suitable and meritiorious, and the standard of female excellence maintained. Whilst moving women into senior positions will act as an accelerant to others, and should be encouraged, rewards must be made to both genders based on merit. Furthermore, women should not be encouraged to blame any hurdle that they face in their career upon perceptions of discrimination. What is needed from all is positivity, collaboration, constructive and open discussion, and mutual encouragement of women in the work place to make the most positive decisions, so that society and business can make best use of their talent.
There is already a huge amount of female excellence in business, and every day when there is more is a victory. But in order to achieve this, the solution is not a battle of the sexes.
I'm human.
