CIPD survey highlights the ‘need’ for more action by employers to address ‘gender inequality’

Peter Cheese is the Chief Executive of the Chartered Institute of Personnel & Development (CIPD). Three months ago he won one of our Toady awards – here. The capitulation of CIPD to feminist narratives in recent years is appalling, and nowhere more so than in the area of the ‘gender pay gap’.

Our thanks to Chloe for this. An extract:

Dianah Worman, diversity adviser for CIPD, the professional body for HR and people development, comments: “The survey findings demonstrate the need for employers to act expeditiously to be able to deliver what will be expected of them, or risk damaging their public reputations as progressive employers of female talent and undermine their competitiveness in attracting and retaining it…

“We welcome the additional focus on publishing information on the bonus gap and quartile salary bands which will give more detailed insights to employers on where and how pronounced gender pay differentials exist and what needs to be done to address them…

“To stimulate employers to act willingly, it is vital to raise awareness about the reasons why addressing the gender pay gap makes good business sense and the good practice that can be adopted to put things right.

Hmm. Why might it be necessary to ‘stimulate employers to act willingly’? For the same reason the Davies Report (2011) felt it necessary to threaten gender quotas for FTSE100 boards in 2015 if the companies didn’t ‘voluntarily’ reach 25% female representation on their boards by then (which the spineless companies duly did). It’s more of the same old, same old… feminist manipulations of deferential men, regardless of the cost.

Another extract:

The most commonly cited ways in which organisations have tried to improve equal opportunities in the last two years are:

  • improving the range of flexible working opportunities available to staff (26% all employers; 34% large employers

  • developing more inclusive recruitment practices (16% all employers; 21% large employers

  • through greater use of mentoring in the last two years to help women progress into the most senior levels in the business (13% all employers; 19% large employers

  • improving the childcare package they offer staff (10% all employers; 14% of large employers)

These amount to nothing less than special treatment for women, at the cost of the efficiency and effectiveness of employing organizations. I’d like to pick up on ‘greater use of mentoring’. When I started work in the private sector in 1979, as a graduate trainee with Beecham, the term ‘mentoring’ was unknown. It’s shorthand for experienced people transferring their hard-won knowledge and experience to others, meaning the latter don’t have to put in the time and effort expended by the former. We can replace ‘experienced people’ with ‘men’, and ‘others’ by ‘women’.

In the world of work, all roads lead to Dr Catherine Hakim’s Preference Theory (2000):

Four out of seven British men are work-centred, while only one in seven British women is.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Will Ruth Sunderland EVER engage with the evidence showing that appointing more women onto corporate boards leads to financial decline?

Ruth Sunderland is a business journalist with the Daily Mail. In January 2014 our associated organization Campaign for Merit in Business – C4MB – posted a blog piece critiquing her article on the financial returns in 2013 of FTSE100 and FTSE350 companies with female chief executives, here. An extract:

So, just one of the four female FTSE100 CEOs performed more strongly than the average male FTSE100 CEO in 2013. The article’s downplaying of female failure is breathtaking:

‘Cynthia Carroll left the top position at mining giant Anglo American earlier this year after disappointing investors and has been replaced by a man.’

‘Disappointing investors’? They lost their shirts. In the course of Cynthia Carroll’s five-year tenure at Anglo American £9 BILLION was wiped off the company’s value. The following is a link to our piece on the matter, along with further information on the performances of other female CEOs:

Six months later, in July 2014, C4MB posted another blog piece on Ms Sunderland – here – with the snappy title, ‘Is Ruth Sunderland (Daily Mail journalist) willing to engage with evidence showing that placing more women on corporate boards leads to financial decline?’ It was, of course a rhetorical question, and the answer was, ‘No’.

My thanks to Chloe for pointing me to a piece by Ms Sunderland in today’s edition of the Daily Mailhere. It’s titled:

Female success isn’t at the expense of men, so why does equality still look like a distant dream?

She may not have written the silly title, but she wrote the silly article. Excerpts:

The gender pay gap in this country is higher than the OECD average and we still have only a small handful of women in chief executive roles at top companies…

Many companies have made serious efforts to get more female directors into the boardroom, and to help women with children navigate work and home. So why does equality still look like a distant dream?

My personal theory is ‘the snowball effect’. [Will this morph into ‘the glass snowball’ in time, to join all the other glass-related myths?] While outrageous sexism is relatively rare these days, for fear of lawsuits if nothing else, many women experience small, but repeated episodes of discrimination – of being overlooked, not listened to, assumed not to be ambitious and so forth…

Despite the nonsense spouted by the ‘men’s rights’ brigade, female success does not come at the expense of male failure.

I shall email Ms Sunderland a link to this blog piece, and ask her if she’ll EVER be prepared to engage with the evidence – here – demonstrating a causal link between appointing more women onto corporate boards, and financial decline. Don’t hold your breath.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Six blithering idiots comment on the gender pay gap: Nicky Morgan MP, Carolyn Fairbairn, Ann Franck, Frances O’Grady, Kate Green MP, Regina Moran

Our thanks to Jeff for this.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Four blithering idiots who champion female executives

Earlier this afternoon I received an email with a government press release. I’ve taken a few comments from some of the people mentioned in it.

Idiot #1

Business Secretary Sajid Javid said:

The employment rate for women has never been higher and there are now more women on FTSE boards than ever before. But we need to go further, particularly when it comes to paving the way to the executive level. Companies cannot afford to miss out on the skills and talent of the whole population if the UK is going to compete in a fast-moving global economy. This is not just about diversity for diversity’s sake, but about improving performance and productivity. [My emphasis.]

It surely doesn’t need stating again, does it, that no evidence exists of a causal link between increasing the proportion of women on boards, and financial performance improvement? The only causal link we’re aware of – from longitudinal studies – is with financial performance decline.

For the past four years Campaign for Merit in Business has been challenging the government and in particular Javid’s department – DBIS – to provide evidence for the causal link he and others keep implying. No evidence has ever been provided for the link, and Samantha Beckett, a senior civil servant in the department, recently won a ‘Lying Feminist of the Month’ award over the issue – here.

Idiot #2

Women and Equalities Minister Nicky Morgan said:

Having more women on FTSE boards allows companies to benefit from the enormous wealth of talent these women offer, and means these women can act as powerful role models for the next generation of girls.

We have come a long way but we must do more to make sure women everywhere are able to fulfil their potential. I want to see an end to all male boards anywhere on the FTSE 350, and much more progress at the executive layer where we know progress has been slowest to date. [My emphasis.]

Progress has been slowest to date in that area, because companies still appoint into the executive layer on the basis of merit, and one element of merit is a strong work ethic. Dr Catherine Hakim’s Preference Theory (2000) perfectly explains why ‘progress has been slowest to date’ in this area.

Idiot #3

Sir Philip Hampton said:

I am delighted to take on Lord Davies’s great work [bullying FTSE100 companies into ‘voluntarily’ appointing more women to their boards, with the threat of legislated gender quotas] around Women on Boards and I want to now turn my attention to the FTSE 350. I will focus on improving representation in the executive layer of companies, as well as maintaining the momentum on boards. This means looking at the talent pipeline for female executives and emerging non-executive directors to ensure we create opportunities and the right conditions for women to succeed. [What would those ‘right conditions’ be, other than yet more anti-male discrimination?]

Idiot #4

Corporate Governance Minister Baroness Neville-Rolfe, said:

As a former director of several companies, I know that business needs to do more to ensure that female talent is harnessed and not wasted. Encouraging progress has been made, but we now need to focus on the talent pipeline of capable women to ensure they can see a viable way ahead into leadership positions.

This will ultimately make companies more innovative and more competitive; a leadership team made up of men and women better represents the employee and customer base giving firms an edge in the products and services they offer. [My emphasis.]

A leadership team made up of men and women with a wide spectrum of IQs would also ‘better represent the employee and customer base’, so would logically also ‘give firms an edge in the products and services they offer’, given this line of thinking. It’s outrageous, how few genuinely stupid people there are on FTSE350 boards. These people are, however, severely over-represented in initiatives aimed at advantaging women over men in the workplace and elsewhere.

Will the mainstream media never expose these people such as the four I’ve highlighted, for their demonstrably idiotic statements?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Louisa Symington-Mills (Telegraph Women) should be utterly ashamed of herself

Our thanks to Mike for this. Louisa Symington-Mills answers questions on work and business for Telegraph Women. A woman sent in the following question:

Last week, I found out that I’d achieved my dream promotion – one I’d been pursuing for ages. But then someone at work told me that I’d only got it because I’m female, and my company was just trying to reach a diversity target. I’m absolutely gutted – and to make things worse, apparently this is common knowledge. I feel like a complete fraud – what should I do?

Ms Symington-Mills’s utterly shameless response includes these gems, I’ve added a few comments:

Gender diversity targets are now a reality for many businesses, and – I’m sorry to say this in view of your personal experience – rightly so. Doing nothing isn’t an option. [It IS an option, and a damned sensible one, too.]

We’re in 2016, and the number of women on the boards of the largest 250 companies floated on the UK stock market still stands at less than 20 per cent. [Given the causal link between increasing female representation on boards and corporate financial performance decline, it would be utter madness to increase the proportion of women even further. So that’s precisely what the government is bullying major companies to do. FTSE350 companies are being bullied to ‘voluntarily’ reach a target of one-third of their board directors being female by 2020, under the threat of gender quotas legislation, if they don’t meet the target.]

Encouraging [bullying] companies to seek better a gender balance voluntarily [voluntarily – hahahahahahahaha!!! ‘Hand me over your wallet voluntarily, or I’ll knife you in the stomach. Thank you, very kind!’] across all levels of their organisation, [other than the lowest levels, obviously] using targets, should in theory be the most sustainable way to reach the ultimate goal of gender parity at work… [even though the ultimate goal is feminist-inspired and therefore, by definition, STOOOOOOOOOPID.]

Even if the fact that you’re a woman became relevant to the assessor making the promotion decision, that doesn’t automatically mean that your performance, skills and business contribution weren’t relevant… [Not ‘relevant’? Could the bar to female advancement in the workplace be any lower?]

Even if your gender was indeed relevant to the promotion, I cannot imagine why anyone in possession of such a fact would feel compelled to share it with you, or indeed anyone else, if they were filled only with good intentions. [‘Your employer should delude you as to your abilities, and pretend you got the promotion on merit. Then you’ll feel less anxious, won’t you? That’s far more important than gaining self-knowledge, and building competence and resilience.’]

If this is a deliberate attempt on the part of the person that shared this information to derail you as you move onwards and upwards, don’t let that happen. Even if your initial assumption, that you’re a victim of tokenism, is correct – and I think it’s unlikely you’ll ever know for sure either way – you need to find a way to move on and banish the doubt.

So my advice to you is quite straightforward to write, but hard to implement: you need to dispel this comment from your mind, and own the promotion you fought for and have achieved. [‘You need to ignore the stark reality that you got a promotion rather than the man who deserved it more than you, on the sole grounds that he has a penis, and you have a vagina. What could be wrong with that? Now run along, you silly thing!’]

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Lying Feminist of the Month – Jane Humphries, Professor of Economic History, University of Oxford

This month’s Lying Feminist of the Month award has been presented to Jane Humphries, Professor of Economic History at the University of Oxford, for a ridiculous assertion on the Today programme about the ‘glass ceiling’. Her certificate, with details of why she deserved the award, is here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Peter Cheese, Chief Executive, Chartered Institute of Personnel & Development, wins a Toady award

One of our most valued sources of leads is Chloe, who happens to be a member of CIPD. She alerted me to a piece published on the CIPD website yesterday, which has resulted in Peter Cheese, Chief Executive, winning a Toady award. His certificate, explaining why he’s won the award, is here. Well deserved.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment