Ashurst's senior partner addresses reaction to the firm's pledge to boost female numbers in management roles

The reaction to the Legal Week article two weeks ago (27 October) that Ashurst is aiming to increase the number of women in management positions has been interesting. Like other businesses, we have for many years been trying to increase the number of senior women at the firm. But, like others, we have found it difficult. The original view that if half the trainee intake (in fact, usually a little more than half) is female, then over time the problem would resolve itself has clearly failed. Being convinced about the benefits of gender equality and actually delivering it are quite different.

Our own assessment of the situation is focused around two quite separate themes.

First, we need to obtain a clear understanding as to why women choose to leave before reaching senior positions. In his report on women on boards in February 2011, Lord Davies identified what he called "the talent gap", showing the significantly greater number of women who are lost to business beyond the normal attrition that is expected in the creation of the typical pyramid structure. Both his research and our own experience is that the most significant reason 
women leave is for work/life 
fit reasons.

A career in a law firm is very demanding. Combining a primary responsibility for raising a family with this job adds another layer of challenge. The legal profession must do more to help those talented women who want to continue in the profession to combine the two.

We do not profess to have all the answers. In a service industry, we all must march to the beat of our client's drum. However, what organisations can do is to help people fit their home lives into their working lives more easily. Technology and new ways of working, as well as the new attitudes of Generation Y, are all combining to make it much easier for people to do this. The reality is that many of us service our clients extremely effectively without needing to be sitting at our desks. It is for these reasons we use the term 'work/life fit' as opposed to 'work/life balance'.

2710-coverAnother common reason for women to leave is the male culture within organisations. All of our businesses were founded and designed by men and so it is not surprising that there are unwritten rules and cultures which, in effect, exclude women from competing on a level footing – in other words, the effect of unconscious bias. Eliminating unconscious bias requires a methodical assessment of systems in the firm in order to create safeguards to ensure that we really are promoting the best people, irrespective of background or characteristics.

The second big theme, of course, is whether or not to introduce quotas. We know this is a controversial area, for understandable reasons. It may still be right to assume that if we remove all barriers to workplace progression, we will in time redress under-representation. There is a growing and more vocal segment, however, that would argue that direct intervention by either quotas or targets is the only means by which to achieve equality of outcome.

At Ashurst we have, for the moment, set ourselves against quotas in favour of targets. What we have done is set out our aspiration to increase the number of women in senior positions in the firm. That is a matter of leadership so we have not, for example, made a requirement that a fixed number of board seats be reserved for women. This is consistent with the views of Lord Davies, who said in his report: "On balance the decision has been made not to recommend quotas."

The reaction to the Legal Week article which headlined that we were bringing in quotas has been interesting. First, the pragmatic question as to what the difference is between a quota and a target. The answer, of course, is that targets are aspirational and encouraged by leadership while quotas impose an absolute requirement. The Legal Week team, despite my efforts to persuade them otherwise, took the view that in reality there is not much difference between a target and a quota, and we were concerned about this. [Editor: This decision was influenced by the fact that a number of Ashurst partners characterised the firm's policy as introducing quotas.]

Nevertheless, the response to the article has surprised us. Of course there have been anxieties about quotas, but the comments we received have been universally positive. Our sense also is that the mood is beginning to change – women would much prefer change to occur without quotas, but there does seem to be a sense that if change cannot be achieved in any other way, then the means might justify the end.

Increasing the number of women in leadership roles is, after all, the best way of achieving cultural change and reducing unconscious bias within the firm. Indeed, experience elsewhere is that often, after appointments have been made, the fact that they resulted from a quota system is forgotten very quickly.

So no, at present we don't have quotas, just aspirational targets. But maybe the headline has served a positive purpose anyway.

Charlie Geffen (pictured) is the senior partner at Ashurst.