If there were more women in top positions within banks and other financial institutions, would the credit crunch have happened? According to Gillian Wilmot’s comment in the FT, apparently not (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c7dcb27c-bbc3-11dd-80e9-0000779fd18c.html.) 

She argues that “the more financially rewarding the task the more men” and that “a lethal combination of testosterone, complexity and greed has brought UK plc to its knees.” The reasons she gives as to why there are so few women in executive roles are interesting – she points out that for these positions, businesses want people with experience and as historically top roles have been occupied by men, they are the ones that tick all the boxes and get put forward. She also says that chairmen appoint people they already know and like, who again are usually male, and that many sexist myths still remain, for example ‘two strong women can’t work together’.

Her suggestion is that female quotas and shortlists are necessary to bring more women into senior positions. She believes more women are needed to resolve the situation as their strengths lie in leadership and communication, both of which are crucial to successful turnarounds.

There is no doubt that the role of men was a large part to play in the economic destruction but is it fair to blame it all on their gender? Would it have happened with more women in charge or is it just stereotypical to say that women aren’t as ruthless as men? The idea of female shortlists and quotas is definitely one that should be considered in more depth and it will be interesting to see how many more women are in executive positions in the future and what effect this has.