More women than ever are now sitting on the boards of Britain’s biggest companies but the top jobs continue to be dominated by men The Government is attempting to bring equality to the boardroom even considering setting quotas. However insisting that boards have a minimum number of women will not in any way change the real power and influence which continues to be with men. The vast majority of women on FTSE 100 boards are non executive directors not chief executives or financial directors. Not a single FTSE 100 company has achieved equality in the boardroom. But the picture is far worse in FTSE 250 companies, where one in five boards do not have a single woman on them and 50% of boards are still all male. It is not just the number of women but the positions of influence they hold; CEO’s and chairs of boards.

Quotas will do nothing to convince boards they need women. Even if quotas are introduced and achieved is there a preparedness to listen and believe in women’s decision making capabilities? 30% of women sited male attitudes as a reason for lack of success. It is only by changing attitudes that equality will be achieved.

There is definitely a lot less overt sexism but there is still a lot of covert bias which of course is totally understandable given that only 50 years ago women’s place was predominantly in the home. Men need to actively believe they need the skills of women and this can only be done by empirical evidence. It is not a question of equality per se but about being recognised for the complementary skills that women bring to business. A head on fight is not the answer, women we need to sell their skills to convince men that women are an invaluable asset in the board room.

A cohesive strategic approach to sales and marketing is essential but companies divide their marketing into a myriad of departments whose responsibilities often overlap. Departments such as; customer marketing, brand marketing, channel marketing, category marketing et al often coexist within an organisation making it impossible to harmonise strategies and plans. Evaluating performance and profitability is virtually impossible making future planning pure guesswork. Furthermore job roles constantly overlap creating confusion and disharmony. A focussed, synergistic approach is missing and businesses need to re-assess their organisational structure in order to get back on track.

Marketing is rarely given the prominence in an organisation which it should have and one wonders why more CEO’s are not from a marketing background. Every brand within the marketing function is a business in its own right and collectively they are the business.

Marketing should be driving corporate strategy. It is the marketing function which should be in tune with all elements of the internal organisation, capital expenditure limitations, production capabilities, resources (both man power and financial). Externally marketing should be forecasting current and future trends, be fully aware of the competition and its possible future plans and be determining the future planning and diversification of the business.

All too often marketing is seen as developing brands and creating activities both consumer and trade – but this is not enough. Marketing needs to determine where existing products fit into the future of the organisation and forecast potential new markets which the company can work towards. As a consequence marketing must work with production in forecasting future needs and capital expenditure requirements. Marketing must be the king pin of the organisation but this relies on skilled marketers with solid training and experience. Sadly this is often not the case.

To hold all of these balls in the air at once is a real skill and needs good training from an experienced marketer. Sadly marketers are now split into so many fragmented functions; brand marketing, channel marketing, category marketing etc., that they do not have the overall business skills required to do the job that marketing should do. Major companies are failing because of the lack of solid marketers and this will only continue until organisations start to train and develop their greatest asset – people.

Boards need experienced and courageous Non Executive Directors who constructively criticise strategic decisions from a point of absolute neutrality, knowledge and balance. It is not just a matter of attending board meetings but to critically evaluate the direction the company is moving in and the actions it takes.

Naturally enough within the board the greatest influences are likely to be the CEO and the Chair. A powerful CEO or Chair will seek to follow a strategy which enables him/her to work according to their preferred style whether that is exploring acquisition, organic growth, low or high risk approach etc., The effective Ned must be able to assess the weaknesses and strengths of decisions being pushed by strong personalities and bring balance and clarity to board strategy. Furthermore they must have their finger on the very pulse of the market, the organisation and the future trends with the foresight to recognise the risks and opportunities. Finally they need strong interpersonal and intuitive skills enabling them to harmonise the board’s strategic ability.

In a capable Ned these skills will have been honed over years of experience and training but they must also have the courage to confront what are likely to be uncomfortable, tough issues.

The duration of office for an NED should be limited to ensure continued interest and objectivity; this is often ignored with NED’s being in office long past the point where they have a valuable input.

It certainly appears that weak NED’s could have contributed to the downfall of many well know companies over the last 5 years and it is time that Boards critically evaluate their Non Executives.