Dr Diane Perrons, director, LSE Gender Institute

Using quotas to increase the number of women on UK boards is both important and desirable—as long as their presence is in the interest of the public and the corporations themselves.

Last year, only two CEOs and 13 out of a possible 352 executive directorships of FTSE 100 companies were women. Although women make up 20 per cent of all new directorships and occupy nearly 15 per cent of non-executive positions, progress is neither uniform nor continuous. These top organisations have not responded adequately to 30 years of equal-opportunities and diversity policies, and neither have they responded to best-practice cases, promotional awards or exhortations of governments.It is important for businesses to reflect the growing diversity of their markets

It is important for businesses to reflect the growing diversity of their markets and employees in an era of global competition and legislative change. This climate increasingly requires organisations to promote equality with respect not only to gender, but also to race, ethnicity, disability, sexuality and age. But wherever discretion prevails with respect to pay, promotion or representation, gender inequality endures.

Using fixed quotas to set a required proportion of women on company boards—as is now the case in Norwegian and Spanish legislation, for example—signifies public commitment towards greater equality. It would also redress the deficiency in existing voluntary practices.

But while boardroom parity is a step in the right direction, it does not guarantee parity at other levels of the organisation. Storebrand, a leading Norwegian finance company, has 50 per cent female representation on the external board (equivalent to non-executive directors), but only one out of nine members of its senior management team is female. This shows that although quotas lead to more equality, further measures are required to change the deeply embedded cultures and practices that generate inequality. These include long, unpredictable working hours and discriminatory practices, such as macho cultures, gender stereotyping and forms of sexual harassment, which are still prevalent even in today's workplace. No

Dianah Worman, diversity adviser, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development

Improving the gender mix in the boardroom continues to challenge organisations, no matter how purposeful they are about increasing the number of women working at this level.

Fixing the problem by manipulating numbers does not seem likely to deliver lasting change. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) research reveals many underlying issues that influence the tenure of women at board level.

For example, Women in the Boardroom: A bird's eye view—a CIPD report based on interviews with female business leaders—showed that many women deselect themselves from board-level jobs for a variety of reasons. These include issues related to flexible working and work-life balance, and the presenteeism culture that prevails at senior levels. Top-level bosses are perceived as having to be in the office to do their jobs. Furthermore, boardroom culture puts women off. They feel they have to spend too much time playing political games.

Many high-achieving women prefer to set up their own businesses rather than work in big companies. This gives them the autonomy they need to juggle their personal and business lives, even though they continue to drive themselves very hard to be successful. Such evidence is a wake-up call for organisations to rethink where and how work can be done.

Another CIPD report, Women in the Boardroom: The dangers of being at the top, shows that women appointed to top-level posts are more likely than their male contemporaries to be placed in risky positions, fail to be appropriately rewarded and have a rockier ride in their careers. Is it any wonder women decide to walk away from top-level posts? Clearly we have to find new tricks to make a breakthrough.

While the idea of enforcing quotas, making an overnight difference to the gender balance in the boardroom, is well intended, a more strategic approach is needed. The danger of a cavalier, politically driven response is that it will just deliver cosmetic improvements, raise undeliverable expectations, and potentially induce a backlash of further disenchantment and disengagement.