Getting more women into senior positions

Women make up nearly half the workforce in many countries, yet boardrooms remain overwhelmingly male. I largely agree that government intervention is justified, because decades of waiting for change have produced very little of it, although rules must be designed carefully.

The strongest argument for intervention is that voluntary progress has been remarkably slow. Companies have promised equal opportunity for a generation, yet women still hit a ceiling somewhere below senior management, often because leaders recruit people who resemble themselves. Quotas or reporting requirements break this cycle by forcing firms to look seriously at candidates they would otherwise overlook. Norway's board quota, for instance, transformed the make-up of its major companies within a few years, something persuasion had failed to achieve in decades.

Critics argue that mandated appointments undermine the principle of merit and can stigmatise the women they promote. This concern deserves a serious answer, but it assumes the current system already rewards merit, which the evidence contradicts: if talent were the only filter, the near absence of women at the top of so many industries would be an extraordinary coincidence. Well-designed rules do not appoint the unqualified; they widen the pool from which qualified people are chosen.

Regulation alone is not sufficient, of course. Affordable childcare and shared parental leave matter just as much, because many women leave the promotion track when caring responsibilities fall solely on them.

In conclusion, I support government requirements as a necessary correction to a market that has failed to fix itself, provided they are paired with policies that make senior careers genuinely possible for both parents.