Why Talk is Expensive When it Comes to Boardroom Diversity

,

Business meetingIf you’re tired of seeing headlines about the financial advantages and growth opportunities that women executives in the boardroom could deliver to businesses, maybe it’s time we flip that conversation on its head.

As much as highlighting the potential that companies could realize if only women were in the decision room, recent findings quantify the tremendous losses that companies are bleeding right now by their absence. The lack of women in boardrooms and executive positions is, plain and simple, being identified as self-sabotage for organizations.

Male-Only Executive Boards Create an Opportunity Cost

Recent research by Grant-Thorton has revealed that the opportunity cost for companies with male-only executive committees in the S&P 500, FTSE 350, and CNX 200 across the US, UK, and India was a whopping US$655 billion in 2014, and US $567 billion in the US alone, or 3% of GDP. The loss results from lower return on assets.

It turns out that talk is not cheap. When it comes to gender diversity at the executive level, talk alone is very expensive. (As is “action” that is PR-strong but falls short of robust follow through on outcomes.)

Only 35 of US S&P 500 companies have at least one woman executive in the boardroom (a far lower ratio than UK or India), but those companies with female executive presence on the board outperformed the all-male executive majority by 1.91%.

Francesca Lagerbeg, global leader for tax services at Grant Thornton said that corporate culture “kick(s) the can down the road” when it comes to board diversity not because they don’t know it’s necessary, but out of short-term fears of what it takes to implement real change.

“These companies are suffering now,” Lagerbeg says. “A lack of action now will make it all the more difficult to respond in the future when both problems are likely to be more acute.”

Executive Women in the Boardroom Equal Better Decisions

What’s noteworthy about this study is it hones in specifically on the presence of at least one female executive within the boardroom, holding female non-executives aside, as plumping up boardroom statistics mostly with female non-execs (UK) still leads to power imbalances on decisions.

“The research clearly shows what we have been talking about for a while: that diversity leads to better decision-making,” said Lagerbeg. “We only looked at listed companies in three markets and the figures are compelling. Now imagine extrapolating the results for all companies globally.”

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently asserted that more women on the boards of financial institutions leads to stability. Iterating opportunity cost, the IMF report states, “Women’s financial exclusion limits the growth-promoting potential of finance and it may also prove costly in terms of lower financial stability.” The authors wrote “…on average, stability is significantly higher in banks with a higher fraction of women in the board of directors.”

Research has also demonstrated that companies with a compelling track record of promoting female executives consistently perform better across 18 measures of profitability.

Despite This, Gender Parity Is A Long Way Off

It’s contrary to the nature of businesses not to evolve when compromised operational strategies lead to loss, but that’s happening on a macro level.

It will take 28 years to achieve gender parity in the boardroom at the present rate of change and that’s not even specific to executive seats.

Forbes contributor Sabina Nawaz asserts that real change will take more than current low levels of consistent jogging towards an abstract goal. Nawaz argues it takes real intensity, including: honest assessments of the presence of women in leadership roles, programs to meet quantifiable metrics by a determined date, and transparently published results. But too many companies are still talking and denying instead of committing.

What If You Don’t Want to Wait?

What about women who want a board seat and don’t want to wait until 2042 before it might be fair game? What about women who don’t want to wait for their company to catch up to the business impact of her voice?

Slow progress is not the same as no progress. This year, there are 11 women executives that are new to Fortune’s 2015 list of Most Powerful Women. Women are gaining ground on leadership positions within boards as well as representation on the committees that select new members.

Just because many companies are self-sabotaging their growth does not mean you have to do the same. If you want a board seat, beginning to make your bid is far better than biding your time until it’s easier to do so.

Forge Your Connections

Develop your connections to existing board members and seek sponsors. The recommendation of board members is the strongest factor in new member selection. If you don’t know the board, it’s unlikely they know you. Take the risk of going beyond your comfort zone with connections.

Be Visible

Janice Ellig, chair of the Corporate Board Initiative of the Women’s Forum of New York, recommends to “pat yourself on the back in a very visible and confident way.” Ellig advises women to “value their ambition” and “stand up and make it known” that you want a CEO or board position.

Actively Seek

Jan Babiak suggests that since 70% of board roles are attained through existing board/management networks, it’s important to cast wide. Connect with high-level professionals outside of your immediate field of work because opportunities may be found where you’re not looking.

All in all, it’s a wake up call to companies: Waiting for gender executive diversity to get easier? It’s a strategy that is costing you.

By Aimee Hansen

/by

Professional Women in France: The Chutes and Ladders

,

diverse women in the boardroomHow easy is it for French woman to climb the corporate ladder in modern day France? France is currently a regional leader when it comes to wage parity and the participation of women in top corporate positions. However there is still much that needs to be done to reach true gender equality in the French business world. Much of the recent work done by France to reach equality was started in 2011 when France officially set quotas regulating the amount of women present in directorial and supervisory boards on large French companies. The quota aimed for 20% female participation by 2012 and 40% by 2017. And while some companies and political bodies are still struggling to achieve the 2012 goal, several other large companies have hit the mark and are well on their way to the 40% female occupancy mandated by 2017.

Najat Vallaud-Belgakem, the French Minister of Women’s Rights said that quotas at top tier positions are only part of the solution. She cites training and increased opportunity at the bottom rungs of French companies are what’s truly needed to change French society. Currently, French women are over-represented in part-time jobs which have little chance for career advancement.

And of those women who are well represented, they seem to be concentrated in a few key areas such as the retail and service industries. Vallaud-Belgakem recently said that only 12% of France’s working population is employed within a mixed gender profession. This is evidence of a strong culture of professional segregation alive in France today. Most French industries are either overwhelmingly male or female dominated.

French politics today remains, like certain industries a definite old boys club. The Assemblée Nationale, the Lower House of France’s congress, remains resolutely male, with only 18 per cent of seats held by women. And with the introduction of the quotas in 2011 some big parties have shown they prefer to pay fines rather than introduce the mandatory numbers of women to their ranks.

A Socialist woman politician, who asked not to be named, recently told the Independent that macho attitudes remained dominant in French politics, even on the supposedly progressive Left. “If a man makes a mistake, he’s a poor politician or a poor manager. If a woman makes a mistake, then she is the mistake. She should never have been appointed in the first place.” This attitude is characterized by an incident where Cecile Duflot, the former Housing Minister, appeared in the National Assembly wearing a white and blue summer dress, she immediately received catcalls from other members of the national assembly. The anonymous Socialist politician said: “It is difficult for some French men. But the world is changing, whether they like it or not.”

This seems to characterize a prevalent belief in French society that women are not suitable for leadership. Florence Montreynaud, a leading feminist activist in France stated,“It is still very difficult for a woman to be accepted in a position of power in this country. It may not always be easy for women elsewhere but it is very, very difficult in France. Here, if a man has a strong personality, people say: ‘Isn’t he a powerful character?’ If a woman has a strong personality, they say: ‘isn’t she a difficult person? Isn’t she impossible to work with?’” Montreynaud says this feeling is sometimes characterized in the way French media refer to prominent French women. “Have you noticed, that prominent women in France are called by their first names? It is always Segolene, not Madame Royal. It is Atomic Annie, not Madame Lauvergeon. In a whole page of articles in Le Monde about Madame Nougayrède’s departure, she was constantly referred to as Natalie. That disgusts me. It is way of diminishing people, infantilizing them.” When it comes to high power business roles this attitude can make it hard for women to be taken seriously. “What is very difficult in France is for a woman to be both powerful and feminine. They have to dress like men, with severe suits and short hair, if they want to be half-way accepted,” said Montreynaud.

The present reality and the future progress

But attitudes in government and business seem to be changing. Initially many high profile businesswomen opposed the encroachment of quotas. Some believed that the tight deadlines would result in a wave of unqualified women into high level positions and result in even more discrimination. But after years of trying to change what is seen as the old guard, many now see the quotas a something of a necessary evil. Anne Lauvergeon, the chief of the nuclear power giant Areva said, “The situation in France is abnormal. If we cannot manage otherwise then let’s make things move with quotas.”

Since the introduction of the quotas back in 2011, the rate of women serving on boards of directors or supervisory boards of prominent CAC 40 companies rose by 7.4 points. In just 5 years this rise has tripled the amount of women in these key advisory roles. According to the Ethics and Boards Cabinet, on the 1st of June 2014, 30.3% of boards of directors and supervisory boards within CAC 40 companies were women. France as a whole has had the largest increase in its share of women in governance roles out of all countries within the European Union with an increase of 17.4%.

But despite the progress in general governance bodies within large French companies there is still a long way to go when it comes to the feminization of French executive boards. Between September 2013 and June 2014 the rate of women in CAC 40 companies and SBF 120 companies increased only 0.3 and 0.1 points respectively. This puts these executive boards as of June 2014 at a low 10.3% and 12.1%.

By Ben Rozon

/by

Virtual networking, does it work?

,

woman on the phone featuredLinkedIn and other online networks are really good ways to maintain your contacts and yes some people do accept connections from people they don’t really know but the fact remains that humans still prefer actual relationships over virtual ones when it comes to getting business done. It is necessary to have a digital presence, think of it as an online resume and personal branding plays a role, but it is what you do with those connections that matter. Ask people to lunch, coffee and in-person networking events so that you can explore mutual interests because fruitful relationships that have a quid pro quo is the way to truly succeed, advance and make lasting contacts.

By Nicki Gilmour, Executive Coach and Organizational Psychologist

Contact nicki@theglasshammer.com if you would like to hire an executive coach to help you navigate the path to optimal personal success at work

/by

2015 Year in Review: Professional Women, The Gender Discussion And Why Leaders Need To Be Involved

, ,

By Nicki Gilmour

Nicki Gilmour - Founder of The Glasshammer.comIt is December already so time for the annual Year in Review 2015 piece that looks at the progress, of the professional woman at work in the macro and micro sense. On a general level and where we can measure stats for boardrooms and management numbers, I have to report very little progress. However, on a company-specific level, some firms get it and are doing a great job at a comprehensive plan to tackle the issue of having a representation of women at all levels. Citi have just announced the addition of two more women to their Board for 2016- congrats to Ellen Costello and Renee James on those appointments.

I have outlined three crucial points in this article for any firm to take notice of when embarking on this journey. The other continuous notable effort that I think is worth mentioning is the increase in male gender champions and my favorite open letter of the year comes from John Ryan as he writes to Michael Moritz showing us that men also care about the endless stereotypes that make a mockery out of talented people of both sexes.

What do leaders who “get it” look like?

People, and specifically leaders of companies who get how to really create culture change around this very unresolved gender dilemma, all share a common ability. Smart leaders understand that they personally have to get involved as well as re-engineer processes to support behaviors beyond the evangelizing part. Leaders comprehend the strategic nature of what needs to happen, that companies are eco-systems and so every action has a reaction downstream and are prepared to address multiple areas at once. Since the culture of any team, company or even country is simply a culmination of ‘how we do things around here’, what and who gets tolerated, as well as what and who gets rewarded for their work means that any firm who can hold behavioral boundaries can improve their culture for all working there. It can be a win win and not a zero sum game.

Pierre Nanterme, CEO and Chairman of Accenture is the latest leader who is putting his money where his mouth is. He has aggressive hiring targets, revealing his goal as 40% of new hires being female by 2017 as well as initiatives to ensure pay parity at entry level and throughout a woman’s career to ensure women don’t get left behind. This disparity has been documented by Catalyst and others over the years to be almost $500,000 in the span of their career earnings.

Nanterme states,  “We believe strongly that gender equality is essential for a high-performing, talent-led organization. This commitment extends to pay, and we strive to ensure that all our people – women and men – are compensated fairly and equitably from the moment we hire them through the milestones of their careers here.”

Why do I believe Nanterme? Or least believe he has a shot at it? Well, other than the fact that he actually believes there are equally talented women as men to hire, unlike Mike Moritz of Sequoia Capital who just last week stated that there are no qualified women for him to hire (in Silicon Valley venture funding), Nanterme has addressed his blind spots whereas Mike has just showed his cognitive bias when he unwittingly revealed his closely held paradigm that hiring women would probably be a reflection of him lowering his standards.

That is the differentiator for me and as an organizational psychologist who is nine years into this topic with several live projects under my belt and the publisher of 4000 articles on theglasshammer.com, I find that the barriers to progress are definitely systemic but correctable, such as accurate succession planning processes and equal pay for the same job done. More interestingly, is that the maintainers of these barriers are actual people and it is entirely feasible to address issues just like any other area of operational efficiency and resource optimization but their refusal to acknowledge there is a problem beyond some sort of Noah’s Ark approach of ticking off lists is where the work gets weird.

We all have bias in the sense of preference but it is how preference is built in us that needs closer examination-let’s face it, when you have all the cards and have bias towards hiring one type of person and the rest of the system is aligned to support the stereotype, the stakes to change aren’t so high to address your own paradigms in life. Hence the word ‘diversity’ is a misnomer because what we are talking about in actuality is about who we choose and authorise to lead us, manage projects and generally get heard. It is all a meritocracy project and meritocracy exists in very few places if at all.

What three things can companies do better in 2016 to ensure progress?

Action #1 Leaders can lead on equality.

Status quo doesn’t change organically ever. There are levers and deliberate actions to take. How managers act will enhance or minimize the effects and impact of any program or policy that even the best HR team or women’s network could produce. So ensure they act well. Why leave that to chance?

By being a sponsor to ensure the right people get promoted or get allocated onto a project, men and the senior women that can “lift as they climb”, this can change the world one person at a time

Action #2 Stop expecting the women in your firm to fix the gender issue

Attracting, hiring or promoting women shouldn’t be a “woman’s” thing. Too many times, I see women’s networks trying to address these issues whilst everyone else gets on with their day jobs. Exclusively outsourcing this work to ERGs, networks and committees is really erroneous. Why would you put the onus on the group that is asking for their fair share of promotions and access to sit at the power table to be the people to fix the inequities in the system?

Not all companies leave all the work to the women and the women’s networks to deal with the issue. Simply put, it is everyone’s problem to fix inequities but some people can fix it faster than others due to their official influence on talent processes and workplace culture.

Action #3 Women and Men all need to address their biases

One of the most surprising elements that I have personally discovered over the years is that some women revere men as stereotypical leaders more than men do, or on a equal par, even if they themselves are arguably the smartest person in the room. Fascinating to say the least and it happens in small and big ways, from deferring to the male counterpart in meetings to unconsciously believing that men make better leaders. I have talked about this at length in other articles in other years.

My advice? Admit you are part of the problem (if you are) because everything you need to know about how ridiculous we all are, based on the binary of gender identity and how being a woman is still somehow a trait that effects a woman’s ability to lead, manage, do deals and generally do well at work can be seen most compellingly here.

While we are on the subject, can we dispel the myth that brain science has anything to do with performance at work (and men are from next door not Mars as it turns out).Social conditioning has a lot to answer for and you can do something about that as the impact is real with the latest research from Accenture showing that Gen Y women despite everything we have told them are still less likely to ask for a pay rise than their male counterparts and 47% of this particular survey respondents cannot see a path to the top.

Finally, can you get everyone on board? Of course not! But those who don’t will be in the minority both in numbers and effectual influence and power, so let’s get started! Smokers still want to smoke on airplanes, right? The difference is culturally a shift took place only because a law and a process facilitated that shift. Think about it.

We wish you a peaceful, prosperous and Happy New Year to all theglasshammer.com readers and supporters.

By Nicki Gilmour

/by

Overcoming stereotype threat as a woman in technology

,

Women-on-computerWe recently had our 6th annual women in technology career event and several audience questions touched upon the issue of what it means to be a women in technology and even what to do when you fall into the “Imposter Syndrome”. There are stereotypes around how technologists are supposed to look for sure, and research shows that unconscious bias is still an issue from messaging women into the industry to promoting them all the way to the top. However, you are here, you are doing it and you can do two things. Firstly find good sponsors to give you the best of the projects and shepard you so that don’t just have have outstanding experiences but you get to fully appreciate the wins and failures without being judged for your every move. Secondly advocate for yourself fearlessly and believe in yourself because you belong here. Lastly, always know that there are good teams and companies out there so if you are not valued, go somewhere that supports your talent and growth.

By Nicki Gilmour, Executive Coach and Organizational Psychologist

Contact nicki@theglasshammer.com if you would like to hire an executive coach to help you navigate the path to optimal personal success at work

/by

Move Forward with Confidence

,

women shaking handsGuest Contribution By Connie Certusi

Earlier this year, the Nasdaq topped 5,000 for the first time in almost 15 years. And, according to the 2014 Sage Business Index, almost three-quarters of women business leaders expect to see growth in their businesses this year.

Now is the time to move forward with confidence, since, as the Latin proverb teaches, “Fortune favors the bold.” Here are four simple confidence-boosters.

Use Social Media

If you’re not sure where to start, social media is a great tool for showcasing confidence in yourself and your business. Dust off that old LinkedIn profile and make sure it lets people know what you’re up to. Join a few LinkedIn Groups and share ideas; you’ll be surprised what a little group support can accomplish. If you’re not tweeting regularly, get on Twitter and talk to people: your customers, professional colleagues and anyone else you interact with in a professional way. And try using Facebook to reach out to new people; it still has a huge user base.

It’s imperative not to use these channels solely for marketing, however. Share good news for your company, ask for ideas, and just talk to people. Link to informative content from other sources to help establish your company as a place where people can get helpful information

And, don’t be afraid to be bold. Showcase an online persona connected to what you want to accomplish this year. Be authentic and, most importantly, be you.

Find a Mentor – or Better Yet, Become One

If you’ve been out in the business world for a while, you probably still remember what it was like when you were just starting out. Chances are, if you could go back and chat with yourself, you’d share all kinds of tips and tricks to boost confidence. But since you can’t go back, you can do the next best thing: find someone else to mentor. Help an up-and-coming woman learn the ins and outs of the business world, and you might even learn a thing or two from your mentee along the way.

If you’re just setting out on your own, don’t be afraid to ask for help. Look for local networking opportunities; a lot of communities have groups designed for just that purpose. Reach out to more experienced women. They’ll likely be happy to share wisdom that will boost your confidence and put you further down the path to success.

Get Outside Yourself

It can be hard to justify anything not directly tied to the bottom line, especially for small business leaders. But becoming a more integral part of your community can be a great long-term investment. If you want people to think of you first when they need a product or service you provide, they need to know who you are.

Get out there and make a difference in your local community. Speak to school groups or sponsor an activity at a local concert or fair. There are many great ways to give something back, and as you give you’ll probably receive, as well. In fact, with only 14 percent of women business leaders responding to the 2014 Sage Business Index survey saying they receive needed support from the government, building a good relationship can help you network with decision-makers in your city or state.

Get Organized

Nothing radiates confidence like someone who knows where she’s going and what she’s doing. And in a business setting, this requires having a plan. That all starts with getting your finances in order. It can be intimidating to make a long-term financial plan, but having a professional you trust to help can make it quite manageable.

According to the 2014 Sage Business Index, 40 percent of women business leaders expect headcount to grow in the coming year. Consider hiring an accountant who can help you figure out where you want to go and how you’re going to get there. Accountants are much more than tax preparers; they can be valuable business partners.

It’s not always easy to show confidence, but you might be surprised what you can accomplish with a more assertive attitude. And, if you must, “fake it till you make it.”

About the author

Connie leads the start-up and small business solutions business, encompassing Sage One, Sage Accountants Network and Sage 50 Accounting. She is also responsible for the Sage Employer Solutions products. With over 20 years of experience in the technology market serving small businesses, she has a passion for helping entrepreneurs and small business owners succeed. She lives in Atlanta.

/by

Is Temporal Flexibility Key to Closing The Gender Pay Gap?

, , ,

money money moneyYou don’t need to work in a male dominated occupation to find your pay check weighs light relative to your male colleagues – particularly, if you’re in business.

In March 2015, the US Census Bureau released the latest pay statistics from 2013, including median earnings by detailed occupation, showing that full-time working women earn 78.8% of what full-time working men do. The census data revealed that across 342 occupations, women (barely) out-earn men in only nine.

Across the nine, the female pay advantage is “nearly inconsequential,” ranging from .2% (counselers, dishwashers) to 6.2% (producers and directors), with a margin for error that could wipe the gap. Yet a very significant pay gap (advantage: male) persists across most professions, even when women are prevalent in them.

Data on relevant occupations illustrates the point:
Occupation % in occupation who are women Women’s earnings as a % of men’s earnings
Securities, commodities, & financial services sales agents  30%  55%
Financial specialists, all other  55%  60%
Personal financial advisors  31%  61%
Financial clerks, all other  61%  62%
Financial analysts  32%  63%
Financial managers  54%  64%
Market research analysts and marketing specialists 56%  75%
Accountants and Auditors  59%  75%
CEOs  23%  76%
Compensation, benefits, & job analysis specialists  74%  78%

Source: Drawn from US Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey

While frustrating gaps in occupations that are historically male-gendered (eg CEOS, financial analysts, securities) may come as less of a surprise, the gap within female skewed jobs (financial clerks, marketing, accounting) underlines that closing the gender pay gap takes more than female representation.

Are men just more valued? Nancy F. Clark of Forbes WomensMedia writes that when men move into female dominated occupations such as nursing, the overall pay of that occupation and level of tasks included in the job remit begins to improve. If appears that when men enter an occupation, its value goes up.

But, what’s going on in finance and business?

Gender Penalties Are Bigger in Business Jobs

Claudia Goldin, Henry Lee Professor of Economics at Harvard, found in her research that when it comes to explaining the majority of the residual gender pay gap, “what happens within each occupation is far more important than the occupations in which women wind up.”

Among high-earning occupations, Goldin found those grouped as “business” have the biggest gender pay “penalty” for “being a woman relative to a man of equal education and age, given hours and weeks of work” whereas “science” and “technology” occupations have the smallest ones.

Census Bureau data shows that women make up only 24% of “computer, engineering and science occupations” and earn 83% as much as men. Women make up 54% of “business and financial operations occupations” but earn only 75% as much as men.

Non-Linear Earnings Are Penalizing Women

“Quite simply the (residual) gap exists because hours of work in many occupations are worth more when given at particular moments and when the hours are more continuous,” writes Goldin.

In many occupations, earnings “have a nonlinear relationship with respect to hours” – for example, a 70 hour week is rewarded in well over double the earnings of a 35 hour week and working 9-11 am counts much more than working 9-11 pm.

It’s less a matter of whether women take time off work to have children or seek flexible hours. It’s whether they are disproportionately penalized for the time they are absent from the office or for working their hours outside of the standard work day.

“Some occupations have high penalties for even small amounts of time out of the labor force and have nonlinear earnings with respect to hours worked,” Goldin writes, and then the gender pay gap is bigger. “Other occupations, however, have small penalties for time out and almost linear earnings with respect to hours worked.”

In previous research, Goldin and Katz quantified the occupational difference in pay penalty among Harvard 1990 graduates. They found that a similar 10 percent hiatus in employment 15 years after receiving their BA (18 months break) meant a decrease of earnings of 41% for MBAs, 29% for JDs or PhDs, and 15% for MDs.

Reduction in earnings as a result of time-off “was linear in lost experience” for MDs, but highly nonlinear for MBAs. “Any time off for MBAs is heavily penalized,” reports Goldin.

Remuneration penalties can result in women going to a different occupation, shifting down within the occupation hierarchy, or being out of work. The research found that when part-time work is largely available, women take off less time (eg pharmacists). Because it’s less available in business, women end up taking off more time even with higher penalties.

Goldin writes, “A flexible schedule often comes at a high price, particularly in the corporate, financial, and legal worlds.”

Closing the Gap

Goldin suggests that the last chapter to achieve gender equality involves “changing how jobs are structured and remunerated to enhance temporal flexibility.”

She found that certain contextual factors close the gender pay gap, such as when colleagues can more easily be substituted for each other and when information can easily and cheaply be relayed between colleagues.

Forbes contributor Clark advises to get the ball rolling on arranging temporal flexibility before you need it – anticipating and addressing the issues that need to be overcome.

How committed is your firm to making temporal flexibility work for women and for the company itself? What evidence do you see? Firms that are serious about gender equality will be proactive in making it work – and add up – for both.

/by

Changing Industry Stereotypes Can Increase Women in STEM

,

People waiting for an interviewDo we really have to paint a picture to make the serious under-representation of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematical (STEM) fields any clearer? YES, decided the faculty at New Jersey Institute of Technology, who have released the infograph, “Are Stereotypes Keeping Women Away from Science?”

Paint a picture it does. A quick glance reveals that women are represented half as much in STEM professions (25%) as they are in the workforce, while rarer yet in engineering and computer and mathematical sciences. From associates to doctorate, women are much less likely to convert their (relatively fewer) STEM degrees into a career in the field, where they’ll net unequal pay and less recognition. In fact, women are twice as likely to end up working in the lower-paying fields of education or healthcare with their STEM degree. Underneath this are the unconscious bias against female applicants and early ingraining of gender stereotypes.

Despite the frustrating gender dynamics at play for women in the STEM field, the biggest reason for the gender gap is too few are. Two recent studies recommend to get more women into the STEM door, widen the entrance: address narrow stereotypes about the field.

Gender, Science, and the “Brilliance” Factor

Recent research published in Science by Leslie and Cimpian found that in academia women are underrepresented in fields across science and humanities that value innate brilliance and morerepresented in those that value hard work and dedication.

Why? Because our culture still implicitly links raw, innate talent/genius/inborn ability/brilliance with men and not women.

As the Washington Post put it, “The difference between Sherlock Holmes and Hermione Granger may help explain why women don’t thrive as much as men in some fields of academia. One is brilliant by nature and the other has to work her butt off, and they represent the pervasive gender stereotypes of our age.“

Across 1,800 academics from 30 different disciplines, academia participants rated the importance of having “an innate gift or talent” or “a special aptitude that just can’t be taught” to succeed in their field versus the value of “motivation and sustained effort.” The study found the implicit emphasis put on brilliance as a success criteria predicted under-representation of women far better than other tested hypotheses. The findings extended to African-American representation, too.

The researchers clarified there’s no convincing evidence that men and women differ in capacity for brilliance, and the study can’t validate it’s actual importance in the field. “The argument is about the culture of the field,” Cimpian said. “In our current cultural climate, where women are stereotypically seen as less likely to possess these special intellectual gifts, emphasizing that those gifts are required for success is going to have a differential effect on men and women.”

Researcher Leslie shared, “Consider for example how difficult it is to think of even a single pop-culture portrayal of a woman who like Sherlock Holmes (& others)…displays that special spark of innate, unschooled genius.”

Field-specific success beliefs conspire with long-held gender stereotypes. “Any group that’s stereotyped to lack a trait that a field values is going to be underrepresented in that field,” Cimpian said.

While the gender stereotype around brilliance may be infuriating, the researchers recommend it’s the stereotype around the discipline that can easily change: downplay the importance of innate brilliance and reflect all excellence requires hard work.

“These findings suggest that academics who wish to increase the diversity of their fields should pay particular attention to the messages they send about what’s required for success,” said Leslie.

Culture Stereotypes & Computer Science

Dove-tailing the recommendation, a new research paper from Cheryan, Master, and Meltzoff asserts that to open the gates to computer science and engineering wider for women, diversify the gatekeeper stereotypes about the culture of these fields.

The article reports, “Computer science and engineering are stereotyped in modern American culture as male-oriented fields that involve social isolation, an intense focus on machinery, and inborn brilliance. These stereotypes are compatible with qualities that are typically more valued in men than women in American culture. As a result, when computer science and engineering stereotypes are salient, girls report less interest in these fields than their male peers.”

The authors acknowledge that many social constraints keep women from engineering and computer science. But they found that diversifying the way these fields are represented – the kind of people, the nature of the work, and values of the field – changes young women’s sense of interest and belonging in the field.

With no direct experience of the field, stereotypes and media representations are often what students have to go on, and they are tight and narrow. Picture a white, geeky, tech-focused, socially awkward but intellectually brilliant, pale-skinned guy with glasses who sleeps and eats science and works on his own. The researchers say cultural stereotypes like this “are perceived as incompatible with qualities that are valued in women, such as being feminine, people-oriented, and modest about one’s abilities.” Women don’t feel they belong to the culture.

The researchers argue that diversifying and broadening the stereotypes (rather than getting rid of them as they also positively draw people) attracts more women to computer science and engineering by enabling them to identify more with the fields, without deflecting male interest.

One opportunity to widen image is in media, which strongly impacts upon stereotypes. In one study women who read articles that computer science was breaking away from stereotypes were more interested in the field than those who read an article confirming them, whereas men’s interest was not affected.

A second opportunity to widen image is in more diverse exposure to the people in the field. In a previous study, Cheryan found that women’s interest was positively influenced when they interviewed a computer scientist who had non-stereotypical appearance (plain t-shirt) and preferences (eg enjoys socializing), regardless of their gender. In fact, the experience increased women’s sense they could succeed in the field compared to women who interviewed with the stereotype. Men’s sense they could succeed was not affected.

The researchers noted, “When the people in computer science depict themselves in a manner consistent with the stereotypes, it can convey to other students that one must fit the stereotypes to be successful in these fields.”

A third opportunity to widen image is around workenvironments, which reflect dominant cultural values. The researchers previously found that young women who were exposed to a room with non-stereotypical objects (nature posters vs. Star Trek, water bottles vs. soda cans, neutral books vs. science fiction books) were far more likely to express interest in pursuing computer science than those that visited a stereotypical room. This represents a sense of “ambient” belonging.

The researchers point out that while these sciences remain male-dominated cultures in which women do face obstacles, “A broader image that shows many different types of people and working environments in computer science and engineering actually represents a more realistic portrayal.” Diversifying representation of computer science helped increased female enrolment in certain universities.

Going beyond narrow cultural stereotypes in STEM widens the door to girls and women. And as more women dare to enter it, the culture will likely, if slowly, evolve too.

By Aimee Hansen

/by

Female CTOs: You Can Make a Difference

,
Female executives can leverage a data driven approach to make an impact in business

Sixty-three percent of IT leaders say their IT budget is increasing, according to the 2015 Society for Information Management (SIM) IT Trends Study. More than 1,000 senior IT leaders and CIOs responded, and based on the results, one trend is clear: IT budgets are growing not only in scale, but importance as well.

diverse women in the boardroomThis equals power for executives who take data seriously enough to grasp its effect on the bottom line. Understanding a notoriously costly IT asset portfolio can influence business and budget decisions, for both IT and the entire company. For example, an organization may uncover that the human resources department uses 15 unique enterpris applications, which cost $1.3 million annually in subscriptions. What they do not see is the cost of maintenance and risk, the infrastructure it sits on, the IT support, and the human capital and headcount associated with those assets.

Imagine that a female executive leverages the company’s IT asset portfolio through data analytics to discover it can save millions by culling valueless applications. She has now played an instrumental role in bolstering the budget, and her strategy is rock solid because she has based it on numbers. In most cases, numbers do not lie. She has asserted her value to the organization and made a significant impact.

Women in technology leadership roles seem to understand IT’s impact on business. Gartner reported that in the fourth quarter of 2013, female CIOs expected to increase their IT budgets 2.5 percent in 2014, whereas male CIOs reported an average increase of 0.2 percent.

Awareness is especially critical now, as the business landscape shifts in terms of budgeting strategies. Just as a CEO would evaluate cost centers and money pits, eradicating those that don’t drive business value, CIOs need to evaluate their own operation and eliminate valueless IT assets. For example, while software represents 34 percent of enterprise technology spending, CIOs spend 55 percent of the applications budget on maintenance and support, according to Forrester Research’s most recent “State Of Enterprise Software And Emerging Trends” report.

Studies show, however, technology leaders are failing to cull wasteful applications, as leadership in other departments has a tendency to regard it as an intense and long-term effort. As a result, CIOs feel pressured to allocate talent to keep IT running rather than transform it.

But armed with numbers, a female executive could step in and make the case for more thorough asset portfolio analysis. After all, it does not matter who has the loudest voice in the room when millions of dollars are at stake. Money talks, regardless of gender.

Plus, executives who enter the data analytics fray are making a positive impact on operations in several ways. In 2011, Gartner predicted that by 2015, at least 50 percent of organizations would be “regularly assessing business value relative to application costs and risks as a part of the IT budget process.” This process would provide great value, revealing which applications were worth the expense, which they should phase out, and which IT assets would benefit from extra security precautions.

“Sadly,” Gartner writes in the latest report on the topic from 2014, “most organizations don’t have an application strategy, and, because APM (application portfolio management) is one of the poorest-scoring disciplines in our ITScore assessment, we can assume that most organizations don’t have APM, either.”

The risks that come with not having an application strategy could also spell trouble as cyber security concerns rise. Respondents to PwC’s 2015 Global Information Security Survey reported the total number of detected security incidents in 2014 exceeded 42.8 million, a 48 percent increase over 2013. Moreover, the survey found security-breach-related financial losses to be 34 percent higher than the year prior.

So this female executive would not only contribute to budget health, she would also play a role in facilitating more efficient processes and tighter cyber security.

Identifying applications and their associated business functions enterprise-wide reveal redundancies, as well as applications that do not justify the high overall costs. These valueless IT assets perpetuate the idea that IT is only “keeping the lights on,” consistently maintaining status quo projects rather than introducing new digital capabilities.

Forrester Research experts surveyed more than 3,700 IT leaders in late 2013, and respondents estimated that an average of 72 percent of the money in their budgets was being spent “keeping the lights on,” meaning supporting ongoing operations. Only 28 percent went toward spending on new projects. This is a recipe for business growth stagnation.

Identifying and removing valueless assets can help the entire organization achieve a more balanced split of innovation to maintenance. When female executives step up to the plate with a data driven approach, they can transform IT into a business driver that pushes the bottom line company-wide, and make a name for themselves in the process.

Guest Contributed by Lindsay Bather, Business Operations Manager, KillerIT

KillerIT, a division of Forsythe Technology, Inc., is a Gartner-recognized IT program and portfolio management (PPM) software suite that provides a data-driven roadmap to optimize IT and accelerate digital business. In 2014, Gartner named KillerIT both a “Cool Vendor in Program and Portfolio Management” and in the Visionaries Quadrant of its “Magic Quadrant for Integrated IT Portfolio Analysis Applications.”

/by

Tech’s Gender Gap Should Surprise No One

,

bottom lineRecently, tech-news website The Verge published a report on diversity at at the U.S.’s biggest technology companies. In data scraped from Equal Employment Opportunity reports filed with the government, the article revealed official stats on workforce diversity at Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, Intel, Microsoft, and Twitter.

The numbers weren’t assuring. While women made up 47% of the U.S. workforce in 2014, the seven big, publicly traded tech companies that The Verge tracked only averaged 29% female. Amazon had the highest share of women workers at 37%, while Microsoft came in with the lowest share of women workers at 24%.

The share of women in leadership roles was even more stark. On average, at the seven companies studied, only 18% of executives and senior managers were women. The company with the highest percentage of female leaders was Facebook, at 23%, while Microsoft had the lowest percentage at 13%.

These are embarrassing numbers (and just as embarrassing were the statistics on racial and ethnic diversity – on average, only 21% of leaders at these companies weren’t white). But they shouldn’t come as a surprise. Researchers have long identified the problems behind the lack of diversity in the technology industry.

What is surprising, though, is how clearly defined the solutions to these problems are. Women keep leaving the industry; we know why; we know how to fix it. Yet the gap persists. A recent report by Catalyst identified several concrete reasons high potential women in tech leave for greener pastures and what these companies can do about it.

The technology industry purports to create innovative solutions to the world’s toughest problems. Perhaps it’s time for industry leaders to shift their gaze toward their own ranks, and implement the solutions experts have crafted to solve one of tech’s toughest problems: the workforce gender gap.

Leaky Pipeline

Tech companies like to tout their work to develop the “pipeline” of women into the industry, sponsoring programs designed to get girls and young women interested in STEM fields. This work is important and laudable. But an early lack of interest in science and technology isn’t the only reason for the low rate of women leaders working now in the industry.

The diversity benchmarking and solutions organization Catalyst says high potential women actively seek to leave the industry. According to Catalyst, women who took business jobs in the tech industry after earning an MBA were more likely than men to leave for another industry (women, 53%; men, 31%). And women who started in business roles in other industries were less likely than men to migrate to the tech industry (women, 9%; men, 13%).

Male MBAs who left the tech industry were more likely than women to say they changed jobs for greater opportunities (men, 67%; women, 52%), while women MBAs were more likely to say the left for personal reasons (women, 21%; men, 12%).

“Organizations invest tremendous resources to attract high potentials, and if that talent walks out the door—for any reason—it is incredibly costly for the company. Not only has that talent taken their skills and training elsewhere, but new employees have to be recruited and trained,” writes report author Anna Beninger, director of research at Catalyst.

The attrition problems are well documented, and so are the reasons behind them. Catalyst says women regularly start in lower level positions in the tech industry than men after earning MBAs. That means they also start at lower salaries from day one, a pay gap that persists over time.

In the study, high potential women MBAs in tech said they faced unclear requirements for evaluation and advancement, while men said their goals were clear. High potential women MBAs in tech said they had fewer role models than men, and vastly fewer said they felt similar to their coworkers than men did.

“Feeling like an outsider relative to their coworkers affects their access to development opportunities, sponsorship, and ultimately their aspirations to the top,” Beninger writes.

“Given the dearth of women in tech-intensive industries, including those in business roles, it is crucial for senior-level men in tech-intensive industries to champion women, and in time, create more women role models.”

Clarifying evaluation and promotion requirements, paying employees fairly, ensuring workers are able to meet family responsibilities and still get their jobs done, building cultures that value people outside the majority, and having corporate leadership set the tone from the top on diversity — these are all things that can help stop the female and minority attrition from the tech industry.

In practice, these solutions will take hard work to achieve. Implementing new policies is easy — it’s changing people’s mindsets that is difficult. But it is possible and necessary. The tech industry needs the best minds out there to solve problems in an increasingly complex business environment. It won’t be able to attract and retain the top people until business leaders approach this problem earnestly. Their work is cut out for them.

By Melissa J. Anderson (New York City)

/by