My Lords,
I am grateful to have the opportunity to join in this debate. My reasoning will become evident shortly.
In the past 40 years I’ve had the good fortune to employ a number of women in senior executive positions. I have to say that I've found women in business to be very focused, determined and ambitious. Indeed in top management positions, they seem to place no importance on ego building, but simply get on with the job in a very efficient manner. About 2 years ago I was asked to give an interview to 2 lady journalists from the Daily Telegraph. The interview – which was about enterprise, apprenticeships and the young – came to an abrupt halt when they brought up the subject of women in work, pregnancy and childcare regulations.
I’ve found that a bit of sensitivity arises when someone like me speaks out on these matters. It tends to spark off a knee-jerk reaction amongst certain women who don’t seem to hear – or want to hear – what I'm saying. Regrettably, what was reported in their newspaper did not reflect my sentiments, so I am very grateful to Baroness Gould for bringing this debate today, as I'm able to air the point I wish to make – and this time I have Hansard to fall back on for the record. My point is, very simply, that I believe the employment regulations for women – whereby the prospective employer is not able to enquire about the interviewee’s status regarding children and childcare (or indeed their intentions of becoming a parent) – are counterproductive. And I think some women would agree with me on this.
As things stand, regardless of current laws and regulations, interviewers are forced to play out some kind of psychological charade. They know their obligation under law, but effectively make up their mind up in advance about the prospect of employing the person sitting in front of them. I say that women should be forthcoming when interviewed, declaring their status regarding children and childcare – so as to pre-empt any ‘un-ask-able’ questions in the mind of the interviewer – and then focus on the most important thing: to explain what skills they can bring to the company and why they should be employed.
I for one would be very impressed with a person who settled this matter at the outset, telling me how they’re going to organise their life in order to do their job; how important the job is to them and what they're going to bring to the party. Such people would jump up in my estimation. As I have said, my Lords, I’ve had the pleasure of employing many women in executive positions over the years. The managing director of my French operation had 3 children – in fact she had one of her children whilst employed by me – yet she controlled that market much better than I could have. The same can be said for another lady who ran my Hong Kong branch; a job she did so well, in fact, that I seconded her to the UK to head up my manufacturing operation worldwide.
Additionally, those of you who are familiar with the television programme with which I'm associated will know that for the last 2 years running, women have won the contest; one of whom is now on maternity leave. She has done a very good job and, of course, the position is completely open for her when she returns. May I also add that my assistant in this programme, Karren Brady (who by the way is the youngest ever woman to be a public company director) has openly managed her life around her children without ever feeling the need to keep it secret.
My Lords, sometimes the law can be foolish and counterproductive. I would urge women going after jobs to be bold and upfront during the interview process. And may I leave you with this final thought – while I have been talking about and referring to ‘the interviewer’, the person most probably imprinted on your mind is a man. This should not be assumed. I have to tell you that this scepticism – the charade so to speak – is played out equally by both genders.
No comments:
Post a Comment