Like such an unlikely and dubious thing could happen.
We know that the reality is that there are as many talented women out there as there are men. Just circumstances of life make it more difficult for women to get to - or want to get to - senior roles/boards.
The emphasis of the BBC commentary is that a woman may be the best candidate, as they'll be able to have more empathy with women viewers. Maybe women are, generally, more empathetic and I'm sure understand women better than men (they are all from Venus after all). But empathy at the BBC goes so beyond understanding what female viewers would want to watch. To empathise with viewers, the CEO has to understand society and have a diverse team of people around them.
Articles last week seemed to me like an attempt to show that the BBC is taking the Lord Davies report about women on boards seriously. And that's a good thing.
But having women on the BBC board goes beyond them being able to understand women viewers. And that's what appears patronising. Are there no other benefits? Could it not just be that a woman is the best candidate and will bring value in all other areas of the role that don't involve empathising with women? And is it possible that a women who isn't naturally empathetic could get the job or is it assumed that all women are naturally able to empathise with women viewers? The point is, let's not shoe-horn people in to boxes based on their gender I.e. A women will make a good BBC CEO because they'll be able to empathise with women viewers.
The article also states that, 'whoever gets the job "has to be tough"'. What does this mean? What does "being tough" look like in the corporate world today? To me, being "tough" means you have resilience and can make difficult decisions. However, you have to balance being "tough" with an openness to others' views and opinions and at the BBC and I would have thought this was as important as being tough.
Rightly or wrongly, I hear the word tough and I immediately think of a sergeant major type. Surely that's not the image you want for the BBC CEO? Is toughness really the most important quality for the Director General, or is this just the word that's been used when considering a woman for the position? Is it assumed that most women don't have the toughness and therefore this is emphasised?
I want to see organisations stop talking about the specific reasons why a women might or might not be good for a top job and start talking more openly about what's really important, how someone behaves in that role and what qualities they have (whether male or female). And it seems to me that there's a lack of clarity in the case of the BBC CEO and in many other organisations and many other roles. Considering people are key to the success of every organisation, do organisations really take enough time to form a considered and shared belief of what great people look like for their roles?
Companies need to really understand what their organisation is trying to achieve and what great looks like for their people, based on intrinsic qualities such as intellect, motivation and values, as well as how people behave and the technical skills and experience people require. The BBC has set out 4 key objectives as part of it's 2010 strategic review; 1) Increase the distinctiveness and quality of output, 2) Improve the value for money it provides to licence fee payers, 3) Set new standards of openness and transparency, and 4) Do more to serve all audiences. What does this mean for the role of the CEO? And what does this mean for other people within the organisation?
Once you really understand what great looks like for people in your organisation, you can also understand how you measure it and then look at how you recruit, develop, nurture and reward this in everyone, regardless of gender..
This helps internal recruitment and succession planning as well. If an organisation is clear on how they want their people to behave, they can identify who currently displays these behaviours and who doesn't and who has the potential to develop them and who doesn't (based on their intellect, values and motivation). This, again, helps remove any bias from internal decision making on any discriminatory grounds.
And if no one's really behaving in the way you need them to, then you really need to work on how you develop the culture and work on the root cause with the board or leadership team because the reality will be that they've created the environment you have today.
So in summary, let's stop putting people in box's because of their gender and get companies to invest more time understanding what great looks like for their supposed 'number 1 asset'. This will not only help remove bias from processes, it will also make organisations much more successful.
I can't wait to see what happens at the BBC…
Jess Stroud is lead consultant at The Chemistry Group
