female only leadership plans

[RabidCity]

I found out recently about a female only leadership plan (example below).

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu...idual-programs/executive-programs/wslead.aspx

In the scenario above there might be two aspiring exec's where one is excluded simply because they were born a male.

I appreciate that women have historically found it difficult to progress but is this the correct solution?
I'm interested in the views of everyone on here (women and men!)

As Sheryl Sandberg said (Facebook COO) - “In the future, there will be no female leaders. There will just be leaders "

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

Positive Action, a lawful initiative a lot of public bodies are using. As opposed to positive discrimination which is unlawful. I have just been through an interview process where I had to answer a question about this, unsuccessfully probably because I think it is a complete load of bollocks, which no doubt showed through when talking about it.

 

[DenisLawBackHeel74]

Anywhere that uses metrics of gender, age, sexuality etc etc to deterimine respesentation potentially has a basis for discriminating on those grounds.

I work for a large corporate company and they positively discriminate employement toward less well represented groups....it’s a fact and most other large organisations do it whether they will admit it or not.

The issue is...and this is perhaps controversial .....I have worked with people in the business from some of these ‘under represented’ groups who are fucking shite at what they do....but it’s impossible to get rid of them .

We recently went through a ‘synegy’ excersie in the workforce (redundancy) and senior HR practically discounted anyone from a minority or underrepresented group from the process...


The bottom line is if companies want to increase representation of certain groups in the workforce metrics, they will make sure they employ more people from these groups regardless of whether they are the best candidate for the job or are found subsequently not to be very good once given employment.

 

[DenisLawBackHeel74]

Anywhere that uses metrics of gender, age, sexuality etc etc to deterimine respesentation potentially has a basis for discriminating on those grounds.

I work for a large corporate company and they positively discriminate employement toward less well represented groups....it’s a fact and most other large organisations do it whether they will admit it or not.

The issue is...and this is perhaps controversial .....I have worked with people in the business from some of these ‘under represented’ groups who are fucking shite at what they do....but it’s impossible to get rid of them .

We recently went through a ‘synegy’ excersie in the workforce (redundancy) and senior HR practically discounted anyone from a minority or underrepresented group from the process...


The bottom line is if companies want to increase representation of certain groups in the workforce metrics, they will make sure they employ more people from these groups regardless of whether they are the best candidate for the job or are found subsequently not to be very good once given employment.

Apologies OP, I didn’t attempt to answer your question with that but in my opinion until women are represented equally in business or proportionally high enough where a comparison with men is redundant, there will always be bias/requirement in tailoring specialist C Level course just for women or companies discriminating recruitment on the basis of increasing representation of women in the business.

 

[Ghandi's Flip Flops]

I found out recently about a female only leadership plan (example below).

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu...idual-programs/executive-programs/wslead.aspx

In the scenario above there might be two aspiring exec's where one is excluded simply because they were born a male.

I appreciate that women have historically found it difficult to progress but is this the correct solution?
I'm interested in the views of everyone on here (women and men!)

As Sheryl Sandberg said (Facebook COO) - “In the future, there will be no female leaders. There will just be leaders "

The example link you give i don't think is really relevant.
It's basically an educational course looking to fleece $25k out of some company or individual.
Pitching it purely to women could be considered quite a clever marketing ploy in today's current climate, with the constant hammering in the media of a gender pay gap & lack of opportunities for woman at higher levels. They are probably hoping some 'woke' HR bod spots it and splashes out the cash to try make their company more 'progressive'.

 

[Blue Maverick]

It’s all a ducking joke best person for job should get it unfortunately there are quotas to fill regardless of whether these people are good enough or not. The white heterosexual male in the workplace should be put on the extinction list.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

marxism in full flight.

Equal outcome is the goal regardless of ability. It's a pit that the west is sinking into with our eyes closed.

 

[Ghandi's Flip Flops]

I appreciate that women have historically found it difficult to progress ....

Just interested in what your basis for this is? Is it purely because they are under-represented at higher management level?

Jordan Peterson (a practising clinical psychologist) has consulted for numerous high level law firms, to find out why they couldn't retain their highly qualified female staff.
His findings basically exposed that the women left through choice, with the majority of them having no longer an interest in working the 70-80hr weeks needed to keep themselves at the top of their profession (not matter how much money they were offered). It also showed that their priorities, with regard to a work/life balance were different to their male counterparts.

Also if you look towards the Scandanavian countries which are considered the most liberal regarding employment & education choices, the evidence still shows that the different genders will gravitate towards certain professions (i.e. nurses are predominately female, whilst engineers are male).

What i'm sorta getting at is that if the conclusion that is drawn is flawed in the first place (i.e. if a company/institution staff don't match the national demographics then something is wrong and needs fixing), without considering other factors like personal choice then any solutions are also likely to be flawed.

You also mention 'historically'. Is this still the case?
More females now attend University & higher education than males. So could it just be a case of lag & natural progression, where once the next generation of uni graduates gain the experience & skills required, that females will naturally outnumber males in the boardroom & higher positions in years to come?

 

[RabidCity]

The example link you give i don't think is really relevant.

Yes sorry - I googled something similar as I didn't want to name the company involved.

 

[RabidCity]

Just interested in what your basis for this is? Is it purely because they are under-represented at higher management level?

I actually have no basis for it, it seems I've heard it so much I've started to believe it.

Jordan Peterson (a practising clinical psychologist) has consulted for numerous high level law firms, to find out why they couldn't retain their highly qualified female staff.
His findings basically exposed that the women left through choice, with the majority of them having no longer an interest in working the 70-80hr weeks needed to keep themselves at the top of their profession (not matter how much money they were offered). It also showed that their priorities, with regard to a work/life balance were different to their male counterparts.

Also if you look towards the Scandanavian countries which are considered the most liberal regarding employment & education choices, the evidence still shows that the different genders will gravitate towards certain professions (i.e. nurses are predominately female, whilst engineers are male).

What i'm sorta getting at is that if the conclusion that is drawn is flawed in the first place (i.e. if a company/institution staff don't match the national demographics then something is wrong and needs fixing), without considering other factors like personal choice then any solutions are also likely to be flawed.

You also mention 'historically'. Is this still the case?
More females now attend University & higher education than males. So could it just be a case of lag & natural progression, where once the next generation of uni graduates gain the experience & skills required, that females will naturally outnumber males in the boardroom & higher positions in years to come?

good points thanks.