5.5 Discussion and conclusion

The percentage of women on the corporate boards of the investigated companies, and in some of the investigated companies at the corporate top, is 30 percent or more. This percentage decreases as you descend the organizational ladder. This phenomenon was identified in all the companies included in this study, irrespective of the number of interventions they had implemented.

In both ChemiCo and ITCo, the average percentage of female employees in the organization is lower than in any of the other companies. This might be because these companies operate in what are considered male dominated sectors. This was indeed acknowledged as a barrier in ITCo (type of work). Surprisingly, however, ChemiCo and ITCo did achieve gender equality (50 percent) in their management boards. This seems to indicate that the pipeline of female talent doesn’t necessarily play a definitive role in this regard, but that other barriers might. The organizational culture at Prof.ServicesCo was identified as the main barrier to women’s progression to the top.

It is not easy to determine whether, and if so in what way, progress in the number of women on boards can be attributed to the implemented interventions. Of all the interventions, the numerical target is the only one that can be monitored. The other interventions are less quantifiable and require another approach to measure their success, for instance by monitoring the number of women partici­pating in various programs; this did not fall within the scope of this research.

It became clear from the interviews that commitment at the top is of paramount importance for increasing the number of women on corporate boards. However, respondents believe that the identified interventions also need to be in place because they help in monitoring progress and following-up on results. Therefore, not only interventions per se, but also commitment from the top is important for increasing the number of women at the corporate top. This finding is in line with literature.1

The findings provide insight into how interventions can help overcome barriers that prevent women from climbing the corporate ladder. The research identified a few barriers that literature has also identified as major barriers, such as organizational culture and bias.2 Table 5.2 below illustrates which of the identified interventions help overcome barriers to women’s advancement. It also indicates how the barriers are addressed by the interventions, and which barriers are not addressed by interventions. The table illustrates, for instance, that interventions aimed at eliminating biases could help overcome the barrier bias. The barrier organizational culture can be overcome by interventions such as a culture compass, albeit that this intervention was implemented by ChemiCo where organizational culture was not mentioned as a pertinent barrier as such. When a company culture is supportive of women, as was the case with InsuranceCo, this could be a factor that contributes to female advancement. Consequently, company culture can work two ways: when the culture is masculine it hinders women in their career and when it is supportive of women it may facilitate them in their career. From Table 5.2 it can also be deduced that a number of interventions do not overcome barriers. This could be because some barriers lie outside the scope of interventions designed by companies, such as the part-time culture, which needs to be dealt with at a governmental level.

The interventions encountered at Prof.ServicesCo are the most progressive. Not only in terms of the number of interventions implemented, but also because Prof.ServicesCo’s numerical target is the most far-reaching as it includes targets for all levels of the organization and targets for the recruitment and promotion of women. However, it is surprising that no targets were set for the boards of Prof.ServicesCo. It is not clear why this is the case. ITCo’s target is the most ambitious of the group, as it aims for an increase of 10-11 percent in the coming years, organization wide.

The intervention specifically aimed at increasing the number of women at the corporate top, the numerical target, resembles a legislative quota. Nevertheless, reasons for companies to implement the interventions are, on the whole, not driven by a desire to comply with legislation. Compliance with legislation was only mentioned in one interview as a reason. Other reasons for having interventions in place lie in the intrinsic motivation that it is good for the company (in terms of diversity of thought, proximity to customers and clients, from an ethical perspective and the efficient use of talent).

In almost all the investigated companies gender equality at the corporate top seems to be equated with having 30 percent women. In all but one of the investigated companies (Prof.ServicesCo), targets were set at 30 percent, or the companies are working towards 30 percent women for the management board, supervisory board and higher management and/or executive committee. The investigated companies have at least 30 percent women on their boards. However, 30 percent women at the corporate top is still not seen as being gender equal, as a representation of 50 percent needs to be achieved in order to achieve gender equality.3

The findings of this research and the interventions implemented by the investigated companies contribute to liberal feminism. The identified interventions fall mainly within the categories of equipping women or creating equal opportunities for women and men, and thus focus on solving women’s individual problems. Mentoring programs, women’s networks, leadership (female) development programs and a program for re-entering the workforce are all programs that specifically equip women for leadership positions. Interventions that create equal opportunities are the interventions aimed at eliminating biases and family supportive interventions. These interventions equip women individually for leadership positions or create opportunities for individual women to compete on equal footing with men. The numerical target and expressed preference for women are also interventions that contribute to liberal feminism as these interventions resemble affirmative action measures, such as quota. The interventions that fall within the ambit of categories 3 and 4 are less easy to classify because they are not aimed specifically at increasing the number of women at the corporate top or at supporting women in the business.

A finding that does not contribute to liberal feminism is the organizational culture barrier, which was mainly pertinent to Prof.ServicesCo. The masculine organizational culture at Prof.ServicesCo is an indicator that the organization(al) (culture) is gendered, which relates to the theory of the ‘gendered organization’ found in critical feminist perspectives (socialist and post-structuralist feminism).4 This finding is in contrast with liberal feminism that assumes that organizations are gender neutral. Also, the finding that the corporate tops of the investigated organizations are committed to increasing female representation seems to imply that organizations are gendered, otherwise commitment to female representation would not be necessary. Other types of interventions are required for gendered organizations that liberal feminism cannot solve. Gendered organizations require interventions that bring about transformational change therein.5