Quotas for women on boards are problematic. But not as problematic as the consequences of not implementing them.
This is how I have - without enthusiasm - come to see it.
"Well, Eva, shouldn't boards consist of the best qualified people - regardless of gender?"
Yes, in the perfect world; the world where all board members are chosen for their suitability.
But that's never been the case, it's not the case now, and realistically, it never will be.
I myself have been involved in boards where all members were fully competent. So I know that such boards exist - also in the form of 'all-male boards'.
Nevertheless, I would say without hesitation that "moderately competent with a strong network" is a fair description of some board members.
An imperfect reality
The reality is that boards are NOT made up of exactly the right people. You may find many extraordinarily talented people in the boardroom, but the importance of the network, and especially the male network... it is often crucial.
If we defend men's right to keep their share of board positions because they have each earned them professionally, we are defending the status quo on false premises.
So... what can we do better - if not exactly well?
A temporary quota system can help ensure that extraordinarily talented (or ironically, moderately competent) women can eventually become an integral part of the male board networks - or build their own.
Granted, this won't solve the general problem: that network connectivity too often trumps qualifications.
But it will - perhaps - put women on an equal footing with their male counterparts.
Are you in favor of quotas?
