Today I attended a meeting at Chartered Accountant's Hall, where the decor and furnishings have been brought up to date but it seems that the minds may not have been.
I was invited to participate in a round table discussion about developing a code of ethics for directors. The table was not round: it was several tables combined, making it much too large for the room and with lots of wasted space in the centre. The chairs, while comfortable, were also too big for the room. Most participants were trapped in their assigned seats for the morning.
My assigned seat was at the chairman's right hand. This may have been a sign of respect (rather unlikely) but it was inconvenient as I am deaf in my right ear and, even with my fancy hearing aids, found it hard to hear the participants seated at the far end of the table to my right. Even if I'd flagged up this disability in advance, I doubt whether much could have been done to accommodate it but it did prompt me to reflect for a moment on how a wheelchair might have been shoehorned into the room.
The participants came from a wide variety of backgrounds and there were more men present than women. Millennials were mentioned several times in the discussion but I don't think any of those present were quite that young.
The meeting was very efficiently chaired and the discussion was interesting but what struck me most forcibly was the language used. When talking about directors the men (notably, not the women) invariably used "he" and "him". Eventually I corrected the chairman when he did it. I was reluctant: over many years of doing this, I have learned that women who speak up in this way are immediately viewed as, at best, challenging, at worst, difficult - which often then taints the perception of any subsequent contribution that they may offer.
He responded apologetically but seemed to think that this should be quite acceptable as a convenience of expression and shouldn't be construed as offensive. I wasn't offended: I just thought that it was important in the context of the discussion to recognise that women could also be directors and I thought this use of language was quite telling in the context of considering ethical director behaviour. I have argued elsewhere that there may be sound social, political and ethical arguments for increasing board gender diversity which are never explored.
He then went on to tell us that ICAEW has recently decided to amend its use of pronouns to be more inclusive which will lead to the possibly confusing use of singular "they", although he thought that "he/she/it" should cover everything. People smiled. A light-hearted throw-away remark but how could he know that none of those present identified as non-binary and might be offended? I didn't think it was appropriate to call him out on this. Am I a coward? My understanding of gender politics is certainly quite limited (but I have watched "Billions" which deals with it in an interesting way).
I am pleased to know that the leaders of the professional body of which I am now a life member have reflected formally on this aspect of inclusivity. But I wonder how long it will take to become the norm in conversations in its hallowed halls.
At one point in the discussion, reference was made to a speech made by Lord Benson in the House of Lords in 1992 during a debate on the professions. The only contact I ever had with the noble lord was in 1968 when I applied for articles at his firm. My application resulted in a brief letter from Henry Benson informing me rather curtly that Coopers did not employ women as articled clerks. Sadly, I lost the letter: I really should have framed it. In the speech Lord Benson said: "I believe that in every profession the citizens should be allowed to join irrespective of colour, creed, class or money." No mention of gender there...
