Report comment

I think it is a good thing for a firm to be looking at these issues, as there are well-documented issues with dismissing as 'political correctness' attempts to improve diversity.

However, I did cringe at seeing "Appointing a female to the UK executive board, to act as a role model to aspiring female talent" - it implies that the only reason to appoint that person would be because they are a woman. It would be more productive to look at why more women are not being promoted on merit.

I wonder whether they have looked at getting outside advice, at examining the processes and metrics they use to determine promotions at present, to consider whether either indirect or unconscious bias are skewing these in favour of men or against women.

I don't think that self-imposed targets are necessarily a bad thing, but I think the question you need to be asking is what you are doing that results in you consistently picking men over women for senior roles. It may be, of course, that the problem is that the candidate pool for senior roles is uneven because you have a culture which drives out women at more junior levels.

Do you have a situation where you have a broad range of candidates for those 'management level ' appointments or should you be looking t examining more closely the processes you have for promotion, career development and staff retention for more junior fee-earners,?

I'd be curious to know what the percentages are for staff below partner level, in management , senior associate and other roles.