The 30% Solution
The 30% Solution is a proven and realistic way to bring more women up into leadership, alter cultural stereotypes, and influence agendas, resources, and outcomes. Perhaps you have been one of the “first women”—a great first step—but found out your ideas had less effect than you hoped. We now know the catalyst for a wave of change is having at least one-third women at the table. Learning more will empower you to move from aspiration to action, inform your personal leadership journey, and provide more opportunity for you and other women to be transformational leaders.
If you have not heard about the 30% Solution, you are not alone. The mainstream media have devoted almost no attention to the bigger picture of women's progress. They have instead focused on sound bites, conflicts (real or imagined), and “firsts.”
Why do the media so often present factoids about women's progress in quick TV interviews or short newspaper articles, without providing the broader context? One reason is that very few women commentators, editors, or producers play a key role in deciding what is newsworthy. Often, without even thinking about it, we are seeing the world through men's eyes and don't realize a woman's perspective is missing.
In addition, controversy sells papers and programs. Therefore, economic and political coverage of women is heavily skewed toward conflict, not progress. You've surely read stories about younger women vs. older women, Democratic (or liberal) women vs. Republican (or conservative) women, working mothers vs. stay-at-home moms, and, of course, the ever-popular feminists vs. anti- or post-feminists.
“Firsts” are also considered newsworthy. Nancy Pelosi becomes the first woman Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. Katie Couric is the first woman in a network evening anchor's chair, and Rachel Maddow takes a similar spot on cable news with her own show. Another woman like Indra Nooyi of PepsiCo or Meg Whitman of eBay becomes CEO of a Fortune 500 company. “Firsts” are certainly better than the alternative, and we've cheered our progress as old barriers have tumbled down.
The broader context of such stories, however, is harder to come by. That context would include, for example, the fact that women make up only 2.4% of the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies,[11] a percentage that has been virtually static over about a decade. We seldom see information to make us wonder why this is so, or how the United States compares with other countries, or whether having more women at the helm might rejuvenate more businesses. Some groups, such as The White House Project and the Women's Media Center, have pushed repeatedly to draw attention to the larger story, but the mainstream media seldom cover their work.
Without this kind of information, we may not realize how much further we have to go. Even if we do, without good data and a strategy like the 30% Solution, women often feel defensive in answering the question “Why single out women?” The work of the women's movement eased much of the earlier overt discrimination, so most of us no longer see ourselves as victims. It can be difficult to articulate why more change is needed, and what kind, to reap benefits for society, not simply to help women or keep the count up.
Background on the 30% Solution
Achieving balanced leadership is actually an old idea. Half a century ago, Eleanor Roosevelt pointed out that better decisions would result if women and men talked through issues together and reached conclusions based on their differing views and concerns. Her words still ring true today: “Too often the great decisions are originated and given form in bodies made up wholly of men or so completely dominated by them that whatever of special value women have to offer is shunted aside without expression.”[12]
This view must have sounded radical then, and it is still not the norm. But it expresses the core reason why the 30% Solution is important: women do it differently. The British Prime Minister's Office on Women puts it like this: “Equality. Same. Different.” Equality means the same opportunities, but the value added by different perspectives can generate different results. We need to get the best of what both men and women have to offer.
How do we get there? The answer is more women at the top—women who are agents of change and want to see more women join them. Critical mass tips the scales.
In many countries, leaders recognize this, and the power equation in government is beginning to change fairly quickly. Some societies, particularly newer democracies such as South Africa, have started with a basic belief in the importance of shared leadership in terms of race and gender as the very foundation of democracy. In drafting a constitution, South Africa focused on men and women, not men or women. It looked for enough representation to gain the valuable potential of all people. Other countries have also set benchmarks for women's representation of 30% or more, recognizing that the 30% Solution offers a clear direction and tested strategy to reach greater leadership equilibrium.
The progress of this concept was speeded up by the deliberations of the Fourth UN Conference on the Status of Women, held in Beijing in 1995. Attending the amazing gathering of fifty thousand women and men and 189 governments as a delegate for the United States was a highlight of my life. We came together to create a platform that could guide the full empowerment and advancement of all women and girls around the world. The spotlight was not just on justice or human rights or equality for individual women and girls or even for women as a separate class. Instead, government officials (mostly men) and women's advocates alike talked about bigger ideas such as the value of women's advancement in achieving major societal goals of democratic participation and economic growth.
The energizing and informative discussions of equality were refreshingly different from any I had ever heard in the United States. They moved far beyond the important, but limiting, discussions of how to right past wrongs or protect women because they were victims of discrimination. The theme was the strength women added in modernizing old ways. A big question was, “What would it take for women to assume their rightful place as full actors in society so entire countries as well as families and communities could benefit from women's leadership and innovative ideas?” Building on three years of regional meetings and expert seminars, the conference reached a breakthrough on altering the status quo.
Two intertwined approaches were adopted: mainstreaming women and their contributions in sufficient proportions in all realms of society, including the top levels of decision making, and creating special programs to combat discrimination and overcome historical inequities. Here at home, most of us in the women's movement had worked very hard (and still do) on the second approach, an issue-by-issue effort to move women forward and equalize the scales. Although much more remains to be done on that front, it is adding the first approach, more women making decisions, that has the potential to be truly transformative.
Like the women I meet, you most likely want to make a greater contribution without having to face unproductive and unnecessary hurdles. You see yourself as having skills and ideas to contribute to a society that reflects the best of both genders. This is a future that will benefit men and women alike.
In Beijing, I saw a future like that beginning to take shape. Governments, experts, and advocates from the poorest and richest nations debated whether having more women in decision making could be a key to unlocking the development of more vibrant societies. The answer was yes. Advancing women's participation in determining the shape of the future was a core means of enriching that future. Behind this conclusion was a commonsense proposition: you can't expect anything different if you just keep doing what you have always done.
The conference concluded that for society to progress, something would have to change in the ages-old practice of men making the decisions and women pressing from outside the circles of power for a piece of the action. It was time for women to claim their space. As Insiders with enough strength to be heard, women decision makers could champion new answers to meet rapidly altering situations as well as solve lingering problems.
The delegates recognized that women's roles, education, and economic and political involvement were already improving rapidly. These improvements, however, were not in themselves resetting the power tables. What else was needed?
The conference determined that the presence of 30% women in decision-making bodies is the tipping point to have women's ideas, values, and approaches resonate. This critical mass of women has the clout to permanently change power dynamics. The 30% Solution was viewed as the essential catalyst to reach equilibrium in decision making.
The idea caught fire. A global agreement reaching across all cultures, religions, and political systems now declared the importance of having 30% women decision makers to spur economic and social development.[13] On every continent, these ideas have been put into action.
The 30% Solution Gains Traction around the World (Except at Home)
It may seem counterintuitive for legislatures led by a solid majority of men to create mechanisms to bring more women into office. However, legislators around the world have been able to look beyond zero-sum thinking about men losing when women win office.
Immediately after the Beijing conference, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, an organization of national elected officials like our members of Congress, adopted the one-third marker as the goal for national legislatures. Twenty-three countries now meet or exceed the goal, while 101 have changed their constitutions, laws, and/or political party practices to aim for it.[14] These are not only Western, European, or industrialized countries. The eleven countries with the greatest representation of women at the highest levels of government are Rwanda, Sweden, Cuba, Finland, Argentina, the Netherlands, Denmark, Angola, Costa Rica, Spain, and Norway. Since the turn of the 21st century, women have been elected president or prime minister in the Philippines, New Zealand, Senegal, Finland, Indonesia, Peru, Mozambique, Germany, Ukraine, Chile, Switzerland, Liberia, South Korea, Jamaica, Argentina, Iceland, Panama, and Latvia.
Different countries have different primary motivations for making these changes. Post-conflict societies like South Africa and Rwanda have written goals for women's participation in parliament into their new constitutions to make a fresh start with new players. In these nations, male leaders were often much more involved than women in fighting wars. Women were often victims and then community builders. After the wars ended, the countries shared the basic belief that optimizing the contributions of women and men would make their societies work best. They also believed that setting hard targets for representation would help achieve this goal by bringing many more women into office.
The U.S. government under President George W. Bush also promoted change by adopting hard targets for women in office—but only outside U.S. borders.[15] The government required the new constitutions of Afghanistan and Iraq to have quotas for women in their national parliaments. Progress for all citizens has been very slow, and long-standing cultural, tribal, and religious norms that diminish women's participation still hold sway. The positive story is how women's voices are now heard at the highest level of govern ment in these conservative societies to begin to counter the pervasive problems women face: Afghanistan is now twenty-eighth in the world in women's legislative representation, Iraq thirty-fifth.
Other countries, such as India, have focused on different reasons for changing their laws. These nations believe greater representation of women will intensify the government focus on many crucial issues and will be of economic benefit. Traditionally, almost all local policy makers in these countries were male. They consistently ignored women's critical priorities at the village level, such as safe water, education, and health care, and this attitude impeded economic progress. Having at least one-third women in these important local-level seats, called Panchayat, has had positive results in bringing about an alternative vision of community development with the introduction of streetlights, clinics, libraries, and public toilets.[16] Negotiations are under way to extend the concept to the state and/or national level.[17]
In stark contrast, the United States has greeted the 30% Solution with silence and inaction. It is barely halfway home to reach the one-third mark for women in Congress. In 1996, the United States was forty-second in the world in women's representation, and it has slid down further and further (see Chapter 3 for details). Other countries are passing the United States up while it complacently moves along at a snail's pace.
In fact, Americans are still debating the role of women in governing the nation. In 2008, polls showed that almost one-third of voters were concerned about whether a woman could be an effective president. In contrast, the first woman prime minister was elected to head the Sri Lanka government almost fifty years ago.[18] Strong and well-known women have also headed other governments, including those of India (Indira Gandhi), the United Kingdom (Margaret Thatcher), Israel (Golda Meir), Ireland (Mary Robinson), the Philippines (Corazon Aquino), and Norway (Gro Harlem Brundtland). The political atmosphere in Norway is exemplified by a story Gro Harlem Brundtland used to tell: her son asked, “Mother, can boys become prime ministers, too?”
Why the 30% Solution Results in Better Government
Women in government are more likely, regardless of party, to concentrate on improving health care and education, on ending violence, and on developing long-neglected supports for working families, such as public policies to promote workplace flexibility and limit the need for family/work tradeoffs. They are also likely to fight for better policies for women (with the exception of the “hot button” issue of reproductive health). In addition, women in political leadership tend to bring a different temperament to public policy discussions, with more listening, more collaboration, and less “gotcha” competition.[19]
The experiences and priorities of an all-male governing group may be so different from those of women that certain issues are simply not recognized as important. Top concerns raised by women are often trivialized, filtered out, forgotten, or never moved to the top of the “to do” list.
An example is offered by Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), who is also the mother of two young children. At a White House Women's Economic Summit sponsored by my organization, the Center for Policy Alternatives, Senator Landrieu asked, “Do you really think if the U.S. Senate was comprised of 91 women and 9 men we'd still be just talking about good child care instead of making it happen?” (Today, with a record 17 women senators out of 100, the question still stands.)
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) points out that having even a few women in the halls is crucial, but it is often not enough to affect outcomes. Priorities naturally will change more quickly when a critical bloc of Insider women strongly make the case and have the votes. Senator Boxer was a member of the House of Representatives during the Senate confirmation hearings on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who had been accused of sexual harassment by a former colleague, Anita Hill, a distinguished law professor. Boxer and six other women members of Congress climbed the steps of the Senate and knocked on the doors of the most powerful senators to plead their case about taking allegations of sexual harassment seriously when judging the character and suitability of someone who would sit on the Supreme Court. Boxer writes, “The seven of us were the only group of women in the country who could get at all close to where the decision over Clarence Thomas would be made. It's hard for me to explain how it felt for seven grown women, experienced in life and politics, to have to pound on a closed door, to have to beg to be heard on a crucial issue that couldn't wait.”[20] Clearly we are overdue to have more women as Insiders, not just knocking on the door asking permission to speak on our behalf.
The 30% Solution Improves Business Outcomes
Several years ago Norway, with its history of women leading the country, passed legislation mandating that all publicly held companies have 40% women on their boards of directors or face losing their corporate charters. (See Chapter 9 for more detail.) The Norwegians looked at growing their economy and improving business performance in a refreshing way—by bringing new leaders to the table. The concept has been very successful, and now other European countries are moving in the same direction.
Catalyst, an independent research organization, has published multiple studies in this country showing that Fortune 500 firms with more women on their boards make considerably more money than those with fewer. The firms ranking in the top 25% in number of women board members generally have higher returns on equity, sales, and working capital than those in the lowest 25%. Moreover, companies with at least three women directors do considerably better on these measures than those with fewer.[21]
Other researchers have found similar correlations between more women decision makers and better returns. McKinsey, the business consulting firm, put its review of the literature this way: “The gender gap isn't just an image problem: our research suggests that it can have real implications for company performance.”[22] New studies show that in Europe, particularly in France and Denmark, financial firms with more women at the top fared better during the 2008 economic meltdown. These results are mirrored in the United States.[23]
Some business leaders are making major changes in their companies to gain a competitive advantage by actively reaching for the 30% goal. Deloitte & Touche USA is a large accounting firm that has followed this course since 1995, when it unveiled a women's initiative. Now it reports its success as due in great part to more women in leadership.[24] At a conference on advancing women in the global workplace, Sharon Allen, chair of the board, talked proudly about the firm's multiyear initiative to operate more profitably by closing the leadership gender gap. The results for women are also impressive: at Deloitte, 35% of partners and 30% of directors are women.
Deloitte was proactive in changing its ways to reach this goal. A study of the “brain drain” of talented women leaving the firm showed a lack of role models and mentors, a lack of flexibility, and the presence of assumptions about whether women would be able to handle the best (and toughest) assign ments because of family responsibilities without asking them. With a renewed institutional climate of “men and women as colleagues,” women must now be considered for every assignment, and retention rates are equal for women and men.[25]
Having one-third women at the top leads to greater opportunities for women at all levels, and businesses stop losing out on half the talent in the country. This is especially critical in good economic times, when there is a war for talent. Catalyst reported significant findings about the internal changes that take place when more women are on corporate boards: “Companies with 30% women directors in 2001 had, on average, 45 percent more women officers in 2006.” More is clearly better—having two or more women directors was 28% better than having just one in terms of opening the door for more top women staffers.[26]
Finally, a higher percentage of women in high-level positions makes it more likely that efforts to modernize old customs in favor of employees and their families will be prioritized as societal issues rather than marginalized as “women's issues.” And these changes in turn will benefit companies: policies that help integrate work and family life have been shown to decrease absenteeism and turnover.
In the United States, the proportion of women corporate directors is nowhere near 30%, despite the strong correlations between a critical mass of top women and greater profitability, more opportunity for talented women, and an increased likelihood of corporate leadership on family and work policy. The United States is missing an opportunity other countries have grasped. Futurist Mary O'Hara Devereaux tells business leaders, “In 8 of the top 10 [U.S.] companies, women are leading innovation. . . . Firms that are not women-friendly and family-friendly won't get the talent they need.”[27] Some of the most competitive countries in the world, including Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and the Netherlands, are also doing the best at closing the gender gap. Germany, eighth on the competitiveness list, is eleventh in closing the gender gap.[28] These countries are taking advantage of their womanpower.
What Can We Do?
How do we push past where we are to where we want to be? More precisely, how can we position ourselves to move society toward goals such as collective decision making, greater integration of work and family, and long-term economic success? How do we get to the place where our leaders take full account of what women have to offer and want to see? Let's first review some popular tactics that haven't done the job.
You know that accepting the status quo, waiting patiently for something to break open for you, wishing on the first star at night, or complaining to your friends won't get you very far. Neither will following the advice of the business pundits (male and female) who sound like Henry Higgins from My Fair Lady singing, “Why can't a woman be more like a man?” Acting like men to be “acceptable” as leaders means continuing stagnant workplace practices and giving up the difference that difference makes. Why would we want more women to move into big jobs and then do them exactly as they have always been done?
Another approach that won't take us far enough is focusing solely on individual women's achievement, important as that is. We have already seen how this tactic plays out. Women have moved up one by one and been important role models and leaders. Their efforts to make old styles change, however, have been like turning the proverbial battleship. Many have found it difficult to act on their best ideas when they are expected to be “team players,” not “rock the boat,” and “be one of the guys to get ahead.” And some token women fit the “Queen Bee” mold, take an unhelpful attitude of “I made it on my own (thank you very much) without any ‘special’ opportunities,” and don't help other women advance. In short, singular changes, even lots of them, don't mean all the talented, well-educated, innovative women have an even chance with men to make it to the top.
Finally, we won't achieve our goals by relying on the push from the Outside. We must continue this pressure but also increase our number of Insiders who share those goals. I have seen both sides of this need. As a longtime women's activist, I have seen lean times when no one Inside both cared about what women want and had the authority to move on these issues. And for parts of my career I have been an Insider with various degrees of authority and responsibility, and advocates “banging on the door” were essential to give me the ammunition to press for new ideas.
Takeaways
Quick Facts to Speed You on Your Way
? Having one-third women unlocks the door to change.
? 189 countries, including the U.S., have ratified the 30% Solution.
? Women bring new answers. In India, having 30% women officials at the village level changed the agenda to bring the villages clean water, schooling, and prenatal care.
? Companies with more women directors have higher returns on equity, sales, and working capital.
What will get us where we want to be is balanced leadership, a critical mass of women at decision-making tables. And to get that critical mass, women have to make the case, build momentum, and articulate a vision of a better future worth working for. We will have to promote the positive benefits of adding the difference women make and steer away from negativity and finger-pointing. Because of where we have been, it is tempting to fall into victim-speak: “We are discriminated against.” Ending discrimination remains an important fight—and we will find it easier to end discriminatory practices with more women at the top.
Claiming discrimination, however, is not likely to be successful as an argument for balanced leadership. A “right to higher positions” contention backs many men into the corner to protect their “rights.” And some women, especially younger women, also feel strongly that an argument about discrimination smacks of “us vs. them.” Instead, we need to emphasize the benefits of balanced leadership for everyone in our society.
Ahead are some strong historical headwinds and tough oppositional efforts to protect turf. We won't get to the goal in a straight line. Changing cultural attitudes takes work at many levels. Many will say balanced leadership is impossible, unrealistic, pie in the sky, or not worthwhile because “we've always done it this way.” Plenty will tell us we don't actually need more women at the top, or say it won't make any difference, or figuratively pat us on the head and tell us to “wait our turn.”
Women should feel no acceptable limits. As presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said in her concession speech, referring to the primary votes she had received, “There are 18 million cracks in the hardest of glass ceilings and the light is shining through and the path will be easier next time.”[29]
Practical Ways to Move toward the 30% Solution
Stepping into the shoes of the people you need to influence makes your arguments stronger. Let's look, then, at where the self-interest of power players matches recruiting and retaining more women at the top.
In business, CEOs and others in the C-suite (the corporate top brass) are charged with producing a healthy bottom line by increasing profits and shareholder value. Successful companies have the best talent in place to increase their odds of doing this. Reducing the chances for women to make their contributions can only hurt these companies, especially in industries and fields where there is a shortage of talent. Yet only one-third of the top 1,500 corporations have any women in top management. In addition, a self-reinforcing, closed management style has led many a company down a dangerous financial path. Shareholders and others seeking change can spotlight the stagnant nature of management composition and the research on how overreliance on “old boys' networks” limits competitiveness.[30]
Companies' desire to be recognized as the “best” creates additional opportunities to gain traction on the 30% Solution. Firms, particularly those with consumer products, compete each year in spirited efforts to be at the top of the “best companies” lists of Working Mother or Forbes. Looking good is a corporate marketing strategy, so even local awards programs by women's organizations can have great influence when pushing internal changes.
This Week I Will . . .
Look for examples in my own world of the 30% Solution in action— where enough women are at the table to set a different tone or direction.
Check out the organizations, associations, and businesses I care about to see if enough women are at the top to open it up, and begin to talk about the benefits of the 30% Solution with others.
Understand how the 30% Solution can be applied by reading the section of the Beijing Platform for Action on women, power, and decision making.
Pressing for change in politics requires a different set of arguments. Political leaders are in business to get their candidates elected. This means we need to identify strong women candidates, set goals and establish programs to facilitate their election, and work to win votes for them. Parties across the globe have put voluntary programs into place to have more strong women candidates running to win elections. In cases where these programs fail, increasingly countries are legislating both benchmarks and timetables to increase the proportion of women in their elected bodies. In the United States there is an aversion to such benchmarks. Based on the reality that women are the majority of voters in every state, however, political parties have plenty of room to get serious about a wider talent search to win elections and internal policies to make sure it happens.
Since 2004, the Democratic Party has been fielding twice the proportion of women as candidates for the House of Representatives as the Republican Party, and they are getting elected at a higher rate as well.[31] There can be a positive spiral here. In India, for example, women have been emboldened by seeing the success of other women elected as public officials. More are running for office and winning.
Competition can help here, too. Right now twenty states have no women representing them in Congress. According to the Center for American Women and Politics, in the more than 200-year history of our country, four states have never had any—Delaware, Iowa, Mississippi, and Vermont. Women can challenge political leaders of both parties to elect at least one woman to Congress from every state. Larger states could set greater goals, and the challenge could be extended to be sure viable women candidates are running in every election for new senators. New practices could start in any state and spread across the country at every level.
Finally, winning elections in many cases means winning the women's vote, because women are the majority of voters. To get more women to vote for women, we can spread the word that, for all the reasons discussed earlier in this chapter, having more women in power is better for society and benefits all women.
Going Forward with the 30% Solution
It is women who must take the lead in achieving the 30% Solution. Waiting for someone else to do it won't work. Though challenging, the task is not impossible for the tenacious, creative change agents that we have shown ourselves to be. Just as we have beaten the odds to win the equality that has already been achieved, so we can gain the power to make systems more responsive. Together, we can instigate a cultural shift away from long-held biased attitudes conferring “leadership” on men. We can change tired, old-fashioned power structures and systems. And although this will take energy and strength, momentum will continue to build as we get from a few to many women in power.
Our allies will be men who also care about the benefits the 30% Solution brings. Many men have been waiting to be asked to join efforts for women's advancement, and many are seeking a world characterized by the values women are more likely to bring to the table. My husband and son are two of them, and I'm sure you know many others. In speaking about the 30% Solution across the country, I am heartened by the positive response of men. A hunger for new and effective leadership is seemingly stronger than any push-back against my message—sometimes to the amazement of radio talk show hosts who have had me on their shows.
One of my friends recently told me, “No matter what the numbers show, being born as a girl in this country is still far preferable to being born as a girl in most countries in the world.” She's mostly right—but not necessarily so for girls born into poor or minority families. A critical mass of women in leadership can help make certain she will be really right in years to come. The 30% Solution can lead the way to a healthier bottom line for companies, for the country, for each of us—and for our daughters, our granddaughters, and the girls of the future. You can help lead the way from a few to many women making the decisions that influence our lives.
How do you begin your journey to step up to leadership and change the world? As a first step, you need to inoculate yourself against a series of social and cultural stereotypes that might hold you back. The next chapter will help you do that.
