????相比很多國(guó)家，美國(guó)在女性權(quán)利方面更為進(jìn)步。但提到推動(dòng)企業(yè)提高女性管理者的地位，歐洲和亞洲國(guó)家遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超過(guò)美國(guó)。

????2012年12月12日，歐盟委員會(huì)（European Commission）副主席薇薇安·雷丁公布了由多家歐洲商學(xué)院編輯的8,000名可擔(dān)任董事的女性名單。雷丁正在推行一項(xiàng)立法，擬規(guī)定到2020年，歐洲公司的女性董事比例須達(dá)到40%。反對(duì)者的理由是沒(méi)有那么多勝任的女性，雷丁認(rèn)為這份最新名單是“對(duì)所有反對(duì)者的最好回答”。

????在推動(dòng)女性進(jìn)入董事會(huì)方面，歐洲比美國(guó)的力度更大。2008年，挪威成為首個(gè)引入了董事會(huì)性別額度的國(guó)家。此后，其他歐洲國(guó)家相繼效法。根據(jù)2011年德勤（Deloitte）一份題為《董事會(huì)里的女性：全球透視》（Women in the boardroom: a global perspective）報(bào)告，比利時(shí)、意大利和法國(guó)已相繼采取官方行動(dòng)，推動(dòng)更多女性進(jìn)入董事會(huì)。

????在這方面，領(lǐng)先于美國(guó)的地區(qū)不只是歐洲一個(gè)地方。一些新興市場(chǎng)在男女平等方面的努力也已超過(guò)了美國(guó)。2011年，馬來(lái)西亞內(nèi)閣批準(zhǔn)了該國(guó)總理提議的一項(xiàng)法律，規(guī)定五年內(nèi)，在馬來(lái)西亞上市的公司其董事會(huì)女性比率至少達(dá)到三分之一。不遵守此項(xiàng)規(guī)定的公司將面臨摘牌的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。

????在美國(guó)我們不能這么干。“在美國(guó)，我們不太喜歡指標(biāo)，”管理咨詢公司Intrabond Capital的CEO唐娜·哈姆林說(shuō)。另外，她還表示，與一些歐洲國(guó)家不同，美國(guó)對(duì)于董事會(huì)成員的服務(wù)年限也沒(méi)有限制，因此更難引入新的女性面孔，即便公司認(rèn)為這是一種好的管理策略。

????2012年，瑞信（Credit Suisse）一份題為《性別多樣化與企業(yè)表現(xiàn)》（Gender diversity and corporate performance）的報(bào)告指出，女性領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的存在是衡量一家公司投資潛力的可行指標(biāo)。“通過(guò)評(píng)測(cè)全球2,360家公司過(guò)去六年的表現(xiàn)，我們的分析顯示，管理委員會(huì)中有女性的公司平均而言比沒(méi)有女性的公司投資回報(bào)更高?！?/p>

????這讓自詡開明通達(dá)的美國(guó)經(jīng)理人倍感尷尬。美國(guó)的企業(yè)文化不喜歡自上而下發(fā)號(hào)施令和任期限制，但有證據(jù)顯示，董事會(huì)多樣性程度更高的企業(yè)表現(xiàn)更佳，而多樣性程度更高意味著有更多女性成員。美國(guó)該怎么做？

????第一步是要承認(rèn)通過(guò)自由市場(chǎng)人才搜尋，短時(shí)期內(nèi)可能無(wú)法實(shí)現(xiàn)董事會(huì)的男女平等。美國(guó)企業(yè)界歷來(lái)是男人的天下（而且主要是白人）。尋求人才多樣化的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人或許不得不尋找外部人脈渠道。

????可資參照的一個(gè)來(lái)源就是上面提到的、可擔(dān)任董事的8,000位女性名單?！拔艺J(rèn)識(shí)這些女性，知道她們有多能干，”雷丁說(shuō)?！拔蚁嘈?，如果（董事會(huì)）找的是人才，而不是原先的男人圈子，那么女性必能坐上高位?！?/p>

????Compared to many countries, the United States is progressive in terms of women's rights. But when it comes to pushing businesses to increase their ranks of female leaders, European and Asian nations leave the U.S. in the dust.

????On December 12, European Commission vice president Vivienne Redding announced a newly launched list compiled by European business schools that contained the names of 8,000 board-ready women. It is, she said, "the answer to all the naysayers" who claim that a lack of qualified women is a reasonable counter-argument to a law she is advocating that would require that women make up 40% of the board members of European companies by 2020.

????The EU is more aggressive about getting women on boards than the United States. Norway was the first country to introduce gender quotas for boards back in 2008. Since then, other European countries have followed suit. According to a 2011 Deloitte report called "Women in the boardroom: a global perspective," Belgium, Italy, and France have taken official actions to put more women in the boardroom.

????Europe is not the only region whooping the U.S. on this front. Some emerging markets are outpacing the United States' gender parity efforts too. In 2011, Malaysia's cabinet approved a law championed by the prime minister that said that in the next five years, companies listed in Malaysia must have boards that are at least one-third female. Companies that don't comply risk being de-listed.

????We can't do that at home. "In the U.S., we don't cotton well to quotas," says Donna Hamlin, CEO of management consulting firm Intrabond Capital. Besides, she says, unlike some European countries, the United States doesn't have term limits for board members, making it harder to bring in fresh, female faces even when a company sees that as a good management strategy.

????According to a 2012 Credit Suisse report called "Gender diversity and corporate performance," the presence of female leaders is a viable indicator of a company's investment potential. ?"In testing the performance of 2,360 companies globally over the last six years, our analysis shows that it would on average have been better to have invested in corporates with women on their management boards than in those without."

????That puts open-minded American managers in a tough spot. The U.S. has a business culture that doesn't like top-down mandates or term limits, yet evidence suggests that businesses with more diverse boards perform better, and more diverse boards generally include more women. What to do?

????The first step is to acknowledge that free-market talent searches probably won't result in gender parity on boards any time soon. American business has been a (primarily white) man's game for a long time. Leaders looking for talent diversity may have to look outside established networking channels.

????One place to look is the list of 8,000 board-ready women mentioned above. "I know the women, I know how talented they are," Redding said. "And I have no doubt that when [boards] go for talent and not the old men networks, than certainly, the women will make it to the top."