Most high level jobs are done by men. Should the government encourage a certain % of these jobs to be reserved for women?
The suggestion regarding earmarking a certain proportion of leadership posts for women invites mixed reactions. The following proposal shall be profoundly analyzed in the following paragraphs.
Many schools of thought vouch for the notion that females are equally gifted and sometimes prove to be better leaders; they have been excelling in any roles allocated to them in disparate domains - ranging from leading profit centers to prospering businesses, but their candidature is seldom considered due to the orthodox views harbored by those at the top. Embracing this arrangement will help ensure that they get their due.
Also, women do deserve equal opportunities for top jobs, as they are effective motivators. They act as beacons for their family, children and acquaintances, and have always inspired others to attempt to attain pinnacle. Thus, reserving some places needing one to take ownership, for them will help society harness this talent and derive excellent outcomes in terms of productivity at organizational level. Similarly, this would enhance diversity of talent and also offer solutions from disparate perspectives, both male and female, allowing a better mixture of energy that the former are known for, and the patient observations that latter are bestowed with.
Nevertheless, there is some skepticism regarding such settings. It is feared that this might precipitate unfair treatment to the better qualified, simply overlooked due to their gender, eventually, leading to resistance and backlash from both the genders who believe in opportunities being offered on the basis of abilities rather than sexes, causing tensions and divisions in the workplace, affecting the work environment unfavorably.
In conclusion, the scheme of keeping some percentage of top management slots aside for women cannot be deemed acceptable by most because it will lead to gender-based conflicts, fetching chaos in return.
