Skirts and Ladders 'Computing is too important to be left to men' — Karen Spärck Jones

“Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws.” – Douglas Adams

Last Friday, the Royal Institution made it's director, Susan Greenfield, redundant. The decision itself was far more melodramatic than that statement, from the information garnered by the media. It's said that staff were given thirty minutes notice to attend a meeting in which it was announced by the chief executive, that she was locked out of her grace-and-favour flat immediately, that she was offered a superb redundancy package which she turned down, that she had wrecked the prestigious institution's finances, that an 'old boys' club' culture was really behind it all.

Unsurprisingly, the bit that seems to have taken off is the 'old boys club' claims. Lady Greenfield made a statement saying that she will be presenting a claim in the employment tribunal which will include allegations of sex discrimination.

"I am the only female who has been appointed to this iconic post throughout the 211-year history of the Royal Institution, and I cannot see how this decision can be in the best interests of the organisation or its members."

Lady Greenfield is widely acknowledged to have been a fantastic asset to the Ri: she is clever, accessible and most importantly, can explain science to mere mortals. But science isn't accountancy, and finance always comes first - as the credit crunch should well have taught us all. All charities have to file their accounts with the Charity Commission. The mere fact that their accounts and annual return for 2008 were filed three months late speaks of poor internal governance, and the Trustee's report discusses issues around their finances.

Digging deeper into the return brings up the page with the Staff Costs, drilling specifically down to the employees earning over £60k. It doesn't take a genius to figure out where the Director falls. Earlier pages also show the Director's Office expenses, with another ~£207k to it's name.

The Ri says that they can no longer afford the post of Director, hence it - and she - is being made redundant. But do those numbers add up? Or is it really a matter of personal actions: she spent too much money, they were too narrow-minded to take any more of her supposed drama (the tabloid interested in Greenfield's marital affairs was particularly uncalled for), and so it was inevitable that this would be the parting of their ways.

It's one hell of a way to make a point - fire her, logic would say, don't stop yourselves from being able to have a director altogether. While I'm sure that they could construe a new position that does half the job (with half the salary) with a new title to avoid the issue of filling a redundant post, it's also the type of behaviour that gives the corporate world it's bad name. Following suit seems unwise.

If this all is a personal matter, as Greenfield claims, then the Trustees and Executives will have to move fast to restore their balance. It's a shame to loose Greenfield, but it would be a far greater loss to lose the Ri altogether. In proving the Ri wrong, she may well hammer the final nail in their coffin - and that's without sex discrimination tagged on.

Ironically enough, as I wrote this, I received an email from womenintechnology.co.uk inviting me to their next event, 'Women of Substance: Inspiring Women in STEM', hosted by none other than the Royal Institution of Great Britain. Wonderful timing. I wonder if this will increase or decrease the size of the audience?