WOMEN IN AUTHORITY

For many decades futurists have been proclaiming that the "future is female". This has been on the basis that, in our ever-emerging knowledge economy, it is increasingly creative and social skills that will matter more than brute force, outright competition and black-and-white thinking. Indeed, as futurist Ian Pearson argues in this BBC News article, as a "care economy" emerges, "people will have to focus on being people, using their emotional skills . . . [and] women are instinctively good at this".

Our need to work towards an even (50:50) balance of men and women in authority can also be understood by considering many of our most dominant and pressing future trends and future challenges. In terms of future trends, the Web 2.0 developments of social networking and online community building require skills at which women fairly obviously excel more readily than men. Cross-disciplinary developments such as the New Industrial Convergence also require the attention of minds most accustomed to multi-tasking and a ready acceptance of few hard-and-fast boundaries. In terms of key future challenges, climate change and resource depletion also require a new form of more holistic corporate and governmental decision making at which women tend to be more adept. Indeed, as we are increasingly witness to the oh-so-slow death of economics, capitalising on female perspectives will be where the smart management practices will be at.

THE CREDIT CRUNCH WAKE-UP CALL

The credit crunch that has now cursed the economics of the world with phenomenal debt was the result of excessive short-term decision making within the financial markets. There is also increasing research to suggest that such poor and short-term decision making was fuelled by testosterone. Indeed, the link between "testosterone-fuelled fantasy" and poor and just as illusionary financial decision making is now becoming an increasingly mainstream debate. It is therefore perhaps not surprising that many including 20-First.com now argue that we need a new focus on "womenonics".

Womenonics recognises the fact that, as argued by investment partner Anne Hornung-Soukup, "women are simply better credit risks as clients, and more prudent as investors and managers. It's easy then to take this argument to the next level and conclude that if more women had been in charge of the banks, all around the globe, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now." Or as financial analyst Anna Cecilie Holst expresses this sentiment so powerfully, "I don't think Lehman Sisters would have taken the same risks as Lehman Brothers".

A RETURN TO THE MANDATE OF BIOLOGY?

By forging male-dominated power structures the human race has done much to sew the potential seeds of its own downfall. Indeed, our civilization arguably now faces some of its most difficult decades precisely because we have for far too long failed to incorporate an appropriate level of female perspective into our key decision making processes. The credit crunch may have been a wake-up call. However, the pending impact of climate change, an oil shortage and broader resource depletion could well make the credit crunch look like a minor concern. Planetary cohesion and the long-term survival of the majority somehow need to rise to the surface as the dominant memes of the 21st century. However, this is extremely unlikely to happen without both men and women in authority in equal measure. Nature gave the two sexes of all species minds programmed in subtly different if highly complimentary ways. By not reflecting this in our dominant and critical authority and decision-making mechanisms the human race has therefore become rather foolish indeed.

Across the 20th century women in at least most Western nations gained more equality with men. However, "equality" at a senior level (to the point where 50 per cent of board members and senior managers are female) is far from being realised. There are, however, some signs that this may be about to slowly change.

A WELCOME AND UNSTOPPABLE TREND?

As reported by 20-First.com, already 60 per cent of university graduates in Europe and North America are women, with this figure set to significantly rise. Women will therefore increasingly be qualified to hold senior management positions and to bring a new, more holistic perspective to those key decisions that impact on us all but which thus far have been made almost exclusively by men. Women already make most consumer purchasing decisions. Why society has not thus far trusted their judgement at a more macro level is therefore in many ways somewhat of a mystery.

Mention more women in authority and the argument that immediately rears its head is that of the "terrible" example of former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Indeed, many people have told me very bluntly that Margaret Thatcher's premiership provides a definitive example of why women should not be placed in positions of power! Ignoring the potentially inherent sexism, this argument ought also to be quickly dismissed on two grounds.

Firstly, whilst many people hated Margaret Thatcher, many others both voted for and approved of her. Secondly and perhaps far more importantly, whilst Margaret Thatcher was an example of a woman in authority, she is not necessarily a good example of a woman in authority who always took a female perspective. Still today many women who rise to the top and break through the "glass ceiling" do so only by sacrificing at least part of their female side and the very aspects of female thinking that the world now needs in spades. In other words, we need more women in authority who are bring their female side to the fore when undertaking their management responsibilities, and who in doing so take less internalistic and short-term decisions.

DIVERSITY OVER EQUALITY?

Perhaps the greatest mindset shift that we all need to somehow take on board is a championing in some senses of diversity over equality. What I have been arguing above is that we need more women in authority not on the grounds that women and men are equal (an equality argument), but because of the biological fact that women and men are different in their behaviours and approaches and that this diversity of the sexes ought to be capitalised upon as a powerful asset in the progression and survival of human civilization.

Please be assured that I am not here arguing against equality. Far from it. However, what I am saying is that in terms of human survival "equality" really is not the issue. Rather, the human race needs more women in authority because they are different to men and will in many instances take better and more holistic decisions. Or to put it more bluntly, a species that capitalizes on the programming of all of its gene pool (female and male) is inherently more likely to survive successfully than a species that ignores the key qualities of 50 per cent of its biological heritage.

For more information on this debate you may want to visit the excellent 20-First.com, and also to view my Reflecting on Global Catastrophes video.