Spotlight on Asia Update: Women in Leadership

, ,

Spotlight on AsiaThis month, the Glass Hammer is doing a Spotlight on Asia to provide an update on gender disparity in the financial technology world of Asia as well as highlight some of fintech’s top women leaders.

Changes in Women Executives

According to Grant Thornton’s Women in Business Report, for the first time all regions of the world have surpassed 30% of women holding senior management positions while the global average comes to 32.4%. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) had the largest jump in women leaders from 37% to 40% making it among the top 2 regions for women in senior roles. APAC has increased to 32% and has outpaced North America (31%) for the first time in 5 years. It was found that India played a large role in this increase thanks to the 2020 government mandate that companies over 1000 employees must have at least one independent female director as well as the mandate for a minimum of six months maternity leave.

The Global Board Diversity tracker found that 84% of companies in Asia have at least one woman as a board member which increased from 73% in 2020 but still lags behind the global average of 93.4%. When looking at companies with at least two women, the percentage drops to 45.4% (78.3% globally) and with at least three the number drops to 17.5% (59.8% globally). Overall, women hold 14.8% of board seats in Asia, up nearly 3 percentage points since 2020. Comparatively, however, Asia is still trailing the global percentage of 26.9%.

Even if the numbers are not on par with the global average, they are still headed in a positive direction. While the numbers of women in leadership are increasing in Asia, some industries are doing worse than others. The technology industry is found to have the weakest profile of gender diversity at all levels. In Singapore, only 6% of executives are women and only 15% of board directors in tech are women. And worse, in Hong Kong, only 5% of executives are female and only 10% of directors are women. But Singapore and Hong Kong are not the only countries with prominent disparities in technology. Indonesia has the lowest share of women at any level employed at technology companies with only 22% compared to the women in the workforce at 32%.

The Boston Consulting Group and Singapore’s Infocomm Media Development Authority found that there are three “moments of truth” playing a key role in women pursuing careers in technology. These moments are their choice of major at university, their first job selection, and their decision to stay in technology as their career advances. The research provides suggestions as ways to combat the moments of truth for young women which include introducing the idea of technology as a major to high school aged girls to increase familiarity, providing programs that link university students to companies, and creating learning and development opportunities for women already in technology.

Though there are low numbers of women executives in technology in Asia, there are still trailblazing women leading technology companies in Asia. We chose three of the top leaders who are at the forefront of the industry to highlight. These three were all named among the Top 25 Women in Financial Technology of Asia in 2020 by the Financial Technology Report.

Paroma Chatterjee

Paroma Chatterjee

Paroma Chatterjee is currently the CEO of Revolut which is a digital banking service app that includes many services like transferring money in 29 currencies, a debit card that enables cash withdrawal, crypto currency, as well as overseas medical insurance. Chatterjee received a Bachelor’s in Science with honors in physics from St. Xavier’s college then went to the Indian Institution of Management, Lucknow for a Post Graduate Diploma in Management. She began her career as a management trainee at Procter & Gamble. She then held multiple leadership roles at various companies before becoming Chief Business Officer at Via.com and Lendingkart. Now, Chatterjee is the CEO of Revolut where she builds and leads the company’s subsidiary in India. She hopes to continue to develop the subsidiary and build a talented team of people.

Cerulean Hu

Cerulean Hu

Cerulean Hu is the Senior Vice President of Blockchain Engineering at Crypto.com in Hong Kong. Hu received a Bachelor of Engineering degree from the University of Hong Kong before starting financial technology journey as developer in algorithmic trading at HBSC. From there she became a software engineer at ANX International where she was also a team lead in finance and trading systems. She moved on to work at Equichain and FINCOVA as a senior software engineer. Then, in 2018 she joined Cyrpto.com as a Lead Blockchain Engineer and worked her way up to Executive Vice President of Blockchain Engineering. Crypto.com is an alternative to traditional financial service with the belief that “it is your basic right to control your money, data, and identity.” The company has 80 million users in 90 countries and offers products like the Crypto.com app and Visa card. Hu has been in this position for over a year and uses her previous leadership experience to continue to grow her team and in doing so, the company.

Jessica Tan

Jessica Tan

Jessica Tan is the Co-CEO, Executive Director and Executive Vice President at Ping An Group, China’s largest non-State owned conglomerate by revenue with an expansive portfolio including healthcare, financial services and automobile services. Tan completed her university schooling at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where she received a Bachelor’s of Science in both economics and electrical engineering as well as a Master’s degree in computer science and electrical engineering. She began her career at McKinsey & Company as a consultant before working hard and being promoted to partner. She later joined Ping An Group as the chief information officer and worked her way up to the position of Co-CEO she holds today. Ping An groups hopes to expand their technologies globally and Tan hopes to help globalize professional services, such as the ability for remote doctors as seen with remote teachers. Outside of Ping An, Tan also holds memberships with the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Securities of Future Commissions. She was also ranked 2nd Fortune’s Most Powerful Women’s international section while also making Forbes Power Women list in 2020.

It May Take Time, But It’s Worth It

While these successful women show advancement of women in Asia to high management positions is not impossible, it remains very uncommon. However, global research has shown that there is a positive correlation between companies in the top quartile of gender diversity and outperforming the other quartiles, from a total-return-to-shareholder’s perspective. These companies are 25% more likely to outperform lower ranked companies and better financial returns. When women match men’s participation in the workforce there is the potential for a significant financial gain. It is estimated to be roughly $12 trillion, or about 11% of the global GDP, lost while gender disparity is still present. Katie MacQuivey quoted in the Grant Thornton study, “It’s crucial that companies build a pipeline of diverse leadership across all levels and invest in long term programs to ensure success isn’t only focused on one point in time.” Having more women in executive positions would not only be beneficial to women but to the companies’ bottom lines.

By Chloe Williams

/by

Women in L&D Leadership: Why Aren’t There More?

, ,

women in l&dLearning and development (L&D) is an industry where women are considered to thrive, but that reputation is shockingly more substantiated by the abundant representation of women entering the field than the slimmer percentages in leadership roles. 

As leveraging L&D expertise becomes more critical to propelling women into senior roles amidst reskilling/upskilling demands across industries, can the L&D field address its own gender ratio flip at the leadership level?

Female-inclined Field, Same Leadership Gender Gaps

By the disproportionate numbers entering into the field, women are clearly drawn to leading on education. A recent survey showed that both education and human resources were among the top five areas for job satisfaction for women. Gallup research has previously found that women slightly outrank men on accepting and empathizing with others as well as being able to recognize and develop people’s potential, natural matches for the L&D field.

Training Industry research has also shown that women in traditionally “female” fields (such as L&D) are more likely to have access to training in strategy and negotiation, key leadership skills, relative to fields like tech or government—which makes what happens at the leadership level more astounding.

L&D is often housed in human resources, where women comprise over 70% of managers, but that’s an inaccurate reflection of L&D senior leadership composition.

As called out by #womeninlearning, a movement began by Sharon Claffey Kaliouby and co-founded with Kate Graham to amplify the voices of women in the L&D sector, research by Donald H Taylor revealed that the more senior you go in the US and UK, the more absent women are in L&D roles.

While support and entry level positions were 67% female and 33% male, this ratio flips entirely at the senior level—where leadership positions are 69% male and 31% female.

The gender advantage toward women already dissipates at mid-authority roles (51% male, 49% female) and practitioner roles (53% male, 47% female), where the split is equal but men become overrepresented versus entry level numbers.

Additionally, Namely found that women entering human resources made nearly 11% less than male counterparts, the gap widening around age 45. In organizational and industrial psychology, the gap was 17.7%. A salary and compensation report from the eLearning Guild in 2018 found that women beginning e-learning roles in their 20s start with a 6% pay gap, which increases to 20 percent at 60+ years. Men also received double the average bonus given to women, .5% higher raises, and 16% more average total compensation, despite women in the sample having higher education levels.

One survey of L&D professionals by Training Journal showed that one in four respondents felt outright discriminated against because of gender, many feeling penalized for being a working mother. Greater were the race disparities. Chief Learning Officer data has shown that only 9% of learning managers are Latino, 5.6% are black, and 2.2% are Asian.

Looking to L&D To Advance Women Across the Board

While the L&D industry’s reputation as a women-oriented field conceals its own perplexing gender leadership gap, the industry is itself being heralded to lead the way on recovering lost ground on gender equality and making advances.

Amidst the vast and disproportional hit that Covid-19 pandemic response measures have had on displacing and exasperating disadvantage for women in the workforce, online learning is being championed as a primary ally in returning opportunity to and empowering women in professional roles.

“It is only when they have access to quality information and ways to decipher it that women can march ahead towards leadership roles in organisations,” writes Dr. S.K Nigam in HERSTORY. “And sectors like Corporate Learning and Development have a huge role to play in this.”

Training Zone in the UK observed that from the beginning of the first lockdown in March 2020, “the number of women enrolling in online courses tripled, with a 250% year-on-year increase in female enrollments across our business and management courses.”

Training Zone also found that since the pandemic, 75% of US employers are more likely to hire people with online education.

In addition to “seeing more women taking the initiative in using online learning to combat the impacts of the pandemic on their careers,” the organization emphasize that organizations need to assume this responsibility too.

A D2L survey reported an awareness gap around training resources: only 48 percent of women reported having access to online learning platforms at their company. But according to Nigam, an international survey indicated that among a sample of 300 companies, 59% reported they ran women-specific learning and development programs, the number going up to 79% among large enterprises.

Upskilling/Reskilling Demands are Elevating L&D’s Profile

Writing in Chief Learning Officer, Amy Borsetti, senior director at LinkedIn Learning Solutions, points to the LinkedIn Learning’s “2021 Workplace Learning Report” to affirm that “L&D is well-positioned to have a long-term, elevated role within organizations today, from promoting internal mobility to actively creating a more inclusive and equitable workforce.”

“One thing this year has made clear is that skills are the new currency in the workplace,” write Borsetti, later continuing, “From an organizational standpoint, creating a culture of continuous learning is a competitive advantage. Those organizations that seize the moment, and get this right, have a higher likelihood to outpace their competitors. It’s not just about learning itself — it’s about the outcomes.”

Whereas being seated in HR has arguably distanced L&D from the core business value and strategy discussions, Borsetti argues that the C-Suite has never been more actively engaged than it is right now. The LinkedIn Learning report found that over half of the 1,260 L&D professionals surveyed felt that L&D is evolving in prioritization from a “nice to have” to a “need to have.” And 63% of L&D professionals reported having a seat at the C-Suite table, a 27% lift within one year.

As Borsetti puts it in Chief Learning Officer, “The reality is, the shelf life of learning programs is shortening at the same or faster clip than the shelf life of jobs.”

The acceleration of pandemic response-correlated disruption, such as displacement and job creation from automation and the more autonomous work-from-home office, has made ongoing reskilling/upskilling both individual and organizational agendas. Meanwhile, attaining microcredentials and refining essential soft skills are on the rise too.

The report found upskilling/reskilling were the top priorities for L&D professionals in 2021, especially internal mobility: “The conditions have never been more right to prioritize skill development as the new corporate currency, level the playing field, create a more equitable workplace and achieve business results that wouldn’t be possible otherwise,” notes Borsetti.

But the question is not only what is needed, but how it should be done. What is garnering attention is exactly how L&D structure, content and approaches evolve to meet the current context in which education must engage, much of which was not considered amidst the whiplash reactivity to online education brought on by the pandemic.

Dr. Rumeet Billan, Chief Learning Architect at Viewpoint Leadership Inc, observes: “We continued to perpetuate our traditional understanding of what L&D is supposed to look like, instead of what learning is supposed to feel like.”

L&D professionals are speaking to how learning is evolving towards being more accessible and customized, self-driven and on-demand, context-relevant, bite-sized, blended, flexible, on-going and more akin in interaction to everyday work activities.

“Transformative learning is an art. Designing a training session is choreography – it’s a sequence that makes the learner reflect, feel, and draw connections that are applicable and practical to them. It’s an experience,” says Billan, who also adds: “The future of learning should look and feel different. We should be intentionally redefining the traditional notion of L&D, how we design and deliver content, and how a learner experiences training and development.”

Can L&D Lead its own Gender Equality Change?

“…I do believe what we’re doing here is opening people’s eyes. Once you see the imbalance, it becomes almost impossible to unsee it,” notes Kate Graham, co-founder of #womeninlearning. “Just look at the speaker line-up of any conference and you can instantly see if that organisation is paying any heed to gender balance and the voices of women.”

So as L&D rises in position in the C-Suite’s vision agenda and increasingly focuses on the learner experience to shape the design and delivery of learning, what kind of experience will be created for the women aspiring to rise to leadership in this very field?

By: Aimee Hansen

/by

Aspire to Lead: Developing Whole and Inclusive Leaders

, ,

PwC“It’s second to none in importance today in business, the skill of being a whole leader, an inclusive leader.” The Glass Hammer talked to Mike Fenlon, PwC’s Global Talent Leader, about PwC’s Aspire to Lead program.

Now in its third year, Aspire to Lead is a PwC series on leadership and gender equality that provides university students and professionals with inspiration and practical insight on developing leadership, from the perspective of inspiring leaders.

“Aspire to Lead is all about development,” Fenlon told us. “We’re not talking about what you need to do to as the CEO. Here are the skills that Day One will be relevant and make a difference for you, women and men.”

In addition to an annual video webcast that reached over 107 countries this year, PwC runs development and skill-building workshops and discussions with students year-round and across the world.

The first live webcast featured LeanIn.Org Founder Sheryl Sandberg and President Rachel Thomas. The second focused on “The Confidence to Lead,” and featured Confidence Code authors Katty Kay and Claire Shipman and Eileen Naughton, Managing Director and VP of Google UK and Ireland.

This year, the event was hosted by the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, and featured Award-winning actor Geena Davis, Founder of Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media, Dawn Hudson the Academy CEO, and Director Jennifer Yuh Nelson. The panel provided insights from Hollywood on gender portrayal and taking your career to centre stage.

Fulfilling potential – being an inclusive and awake leader

“Aspire to Lead is about fulfilling potential,” Fenlon told us. “It’s absolutely critical for us to create an environment where everyone, men and women, can fulfill their potential and be whole leaders, inclusive leaders, and that means both individually and in our teams. That’s literally at the heart of our development framework.”

“One (aspect of inclusive leadership) is that I’m demonstrating self-awareness,” explained Fenlon. “In the context of working across differences, that means a commitment to understanding my own (unconscious) blindspots.”

“I’ll give you a few words,” he said. “Engineer. Scientist. Venture capitalist. Executive. Surgeon. Leader. Accountant. CEO. Literally, who do you see? What the research shows us is that who you see is skewed towards a male image, for both men and women.”

“The point is when I see you, do I see you as someone who possesses the potential to be a leader,” said Fenlon. “Am I going to connect you with people who I think will be valuable? Am I going to assign you to work that will stretch you and develop you? Will I take some risks because I see potential? This is about seeing potential.”

One of the discussion materials that’s been used in the program is an animated video in which a woman shares an idea in a meeting and goes unnoticed. Minutes later, a man shares the same idea and it’s hailed as “a breakthrough”.

“That shows a blind spot as a leader,” Fenlon said. “Am I awake, am I tuned into the dynamics of my team, to creating an atmosphere where everyone can contribute their ideas and everyone’s heard?”

“So when we talk about whole leadership,” Fenlon explains, “we start by saying I have to develop my self-awareness around who I am, around how my life experiences and culture have shaped how I see the world, and how I see others, and my ability to recognize talent. Is there anything more important in business than the ability to recognize talent, to spot talent?”

“If you’re asleep, if you’re blind, you’re really captive to your own biases and cultural assumptions, which just aren’t true,” Fenlon said. “If I’m awake, I understand, I’m seeing what’s in front of me, the dynamics in my team, who is speaking, who is being heard, who is contributing. I’m awake to the potential of my colleagues, of the people in my team. I see it. I’m excited by it. I’m creating opportunities for people to fulfill their potential. I’m aware of my blindspots. This is important for women and men.”

Throwing out the script

Speaking about the 2016 webcast, Fenlon says, “Our focus was the representation of gender in the entertainment and the media, and how that shapes the assumptions we make and those blindspots. We used that as a metaphor for ‘how do I write my own script, how do I demonstrate the confidence to be center stage, how do I launch my career in a way that I’m positioned to fulfill my potential?’”

The forum demonstrated how women can reject cultural scripts to write their own.

“Think of it this way,” said Fenlon. “Stereotypes are scripts that other people have written for you…You show up, day one of the office. Well, here are the three standard scripts, if you will, and they reflect massive blindspots. They may reflect all sorts of assumptions that are widely inaccurate about who you are and what you can do. But they’re the traditional scripts.”

“Jennifer Yuh Nielson is one of the very few women directors in Hollywood,” said Fenlon. “When she leads, and this is part of the power of the discussion we had, she leads as an introvert. She’s very focused on listening. She’s not the stereotypical director… She didn’t take the scripts that may have been handed to her. It’s about authentic leadership, playing to your strengths, and different styles of leadership than maybe what are stereotypically associated with men. It’s not just about being more like stereotypical male masculine models. And what can men then learn, in turn?”

Bringing men and women together

As one of the ten founding IMPACT partners for HeforShe, an important aspect of Aspire to Lead is that it brings both men and women together to work on gender equality together.

“When we did our session with Sheryl Sandberg, I bought all sort of books and I was handing them out,” said Fenlon. “I was talking to women colleagues and they were organizing Lean In circles, reading books, going to lunch and going to talking about it, going to conferences. And meanwhile what were men doing? Very little, is the answer.”

“I wrote in one of my blogs, ‘Is gender equality women’s work?’ Obviously, that’s rhetorical,” said Fenlon. “If we’re going to achieve gender equality, inclusive leadership, we all have a role to play here, and for men to become inclusive leaders, to fulfill their potential as a manager, as someone who can spot talent, who can bring out the best in others, who can bring out the best in a team, it means I’ve got to exercise self-awareness. I’ve got to look and acknowledge my blind spots. I’ve got to diversify my personal network. I have to learn to make sure I’m calling out all voices. I have to bring equality home.”

“The question is: who do you see…?”

“Aspire to Lead reflects our commitment as a culture,” said Fenlon. “We want students to have a really valuable development experience and in the process develop whole leaders, develop the leadership skills of students, help them prepare to launch their career, and to drive gender equality.”

Getting personal, Fenlon shared, “I brought my daughter to Hollywood Boulevard, and I took a picture of one star. You know these stars that have yet to be named? The question is: who do you see in that star? When you think about talent, when you think about a software engineer, when you think about a doctor, surgeon, accountant, lawyer, executive, venture capitalist, who do you see?”

Across the bottom of the symposium page for the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media, are the words: If she can see it, she can be it.

What Fenlon is driving at here is a critical complementary point. If we can all learn to see the potential of it already in her (or stop being blind to it), we can help her to be it, too.

/by

The Bamboo Ceiling Could Be Costing Business

,

Woman-on-a-ladder-searchingBy Aimee Hansen

As we enter Asian-Pacific American Heritage month, we can say this about the bamboo ceiling: no matter the myriad of individual, cultural, and organizational factors holding it in place, it’s likely to be costing businesses.

As we look to Asian American women at the top of corporate leadership, Indra Nooyi, Chairperson and CEO of Pepsi Co (for a decade now), ranks #2 in Fortune’s 50 “Most Powerful Women in Business”and #15 in Forbes’“The World’s 100 Most Powerful Women”.

But Nooyi is the only Asian American woman represented in the Fortune ranks and joined only by Chinese-born Weili Dai, Cofounder-President of Marvell Technology Group Ltd, at #95 in Forbes list.

Catalyst data has shown that Asian women make up only 4.4% of manager and above level positions and under 2% of executive positions in S&P 500 companies and 3.7% of board seats. If you really want to know about successful Asian American women business leadership in the U.S., you have to look at a different list.

Self-Made Women Who Grow Businesses

In May, 2015 Forbes introduced a new women in business success list – “America’s Richest Self-Made Women” – which tells a different story about Asian women at the top of successful business ventures in the U.S.

Asian American women claim nine of the 50 spaces across various industries – including #4 (Jin Sook Chang – retail), #13 (Peggy Cherng – food), #14 (Thai Lee – tech), #15 (Neerja Sethi – tech), #21 (Weili Dai – semiconductors), #29 (Jane Hsiao – biotech), #30 (Jayshree Ullal – tech), #34 (Vera Wang – fashion), and #41 (Sachiko Kuno – pharma).

Nearly one in five of the richest self-made women are Asian Americans. Thai Lee’s SHI International is the largest female-owned business in the US according to Forbes and one of the largest minority-owned businesses.

The Wall Street Journal also sums up, based on a new report from the Center for Global Policy Solutions, that minority-owned businesses were “a key driver of business and job-creation”between 2007-2011, responsible for 72.3% of new jobs. The most dramatic shifts were among female entrepreneurs – and most of all, Asian Americans.

The number of Asian American women owned businesses increased by 44% and those hiring paid employees by 37.6% during that time, and these businesses also witnessed an uncommon growth in sales.

According to the center, catalyzing the share of businesses lead by minorities to mirror the minority share of the labor force would result in 1.1 million more businesses, nine million more jobs, and $300 billion in income for workers.

The under-representation of minority female leadership, and resulting missed financial opportunity, is not limited to entrepreneurship. It’s also present with the missing Asian American leaders in corporate America.

The Employee-Executive Gap

Last year, a diversity study across five companies entitled “Hidden in Plain Sight: Asian-American Leaders in Silicon Valley”by Ascend demonstrated that, as put by The Atlantic, “Asian Americans professionals aren’t being promoted”and that showed especially true for women.

The study found that while 27% of professionals across five major tech firms were Asian American, fewer than 19% of managers and less than 14% of executives were. But for Asian American women in the sample, only 1 in 285 were an executive (versus 1 per 201 for Asian Men, 1 per 123 for white women, and and 1 per 87 for white men).

The report states, “The ‘Asian effect’ is 3.7X greater than the “gender effect”as a glass ceiling factor. The Asian effect was measured at ~154% for both men and women. The gender effect was measured at ~42% for both whites and Asians.”

According to The Atlantic, “Rather than blatant discrimination, report coauthors Denise Peck and Buck Gee (and Janet Wong) say, this disparity is a result of implicit biases. They say that Asian Americans need to learn the leadership skills that corporate America values, such as adapting public speaking skills to fit their company, while the executives themselves need to learn how to best retain and promote Asian American talent.”

The Glass Hammer has previously written about the barriers of success for Asian women facing two ceilings (glass and bamboo) that add to a greater whole – barriers such as cultural differences and culturally internalized norms, cultural stereotypes and expectations, social perception and self-perception, and the imposter syndrome.

The report authors identify “three major Asian leadership gaps: a gap in awareness and expectations, a gap in role models, and a gap in behavior”and asserts that both Asian American professionals and companies need to take steps in closing these gaps that contribute to many professionals in “most successful racial group in the United States”from being promoted to leadership roles in tech businesses.

Jane Hyun, author of Breaking the Bamboo Ceiling, speaks to the misperceptions that can come from cultural factors such as holding back to show respect, as well as the importance of self-promotion. “…I realized it’s not just about working hard, but knowing how to communicate what you’re doing, having the right mentors and sponsors, and connecting with people in a way that people understand what you’re doing and the value of what you’re trying to achieve as well.”

Closing the Bamboo Gap

Forums such as The Asian American Business Roundtable, which held its inaugural summit in January, help to address the gaps. One of the specific objectives is to increase the visibility and presence of Asian Americans in the U.S. business area, and the summit included panel discussions with women trailblazers sharing insight on their success.

Where strong cultural gaps exist, the work needs to come from both sides, but one thing is clear: If nearly 1 in 5 of the most monetarily successful self-made women (read: bosses) are Asian American, then the potential for leadership in the corporate world is greater than what is being realized, and that’s a gap that could be costing businesses more than they think.

/by

Apples-to-Apples, the Gender Pay Gap Exists

, , ,
money money moneyThis week we hit “Equal Pay Day” on Tuesday, a day which symbolizes the extra days women must work to make the same salary as her male peers did last year.

According to the Demystifying The Gender Pay Gap survey by Glassdoor, the biggest myth about the gender pay gap is that it doesn’t exist at all, as 7 in 10 employees across seven countries assumed men and women received the same pay for the same work. But even when narrowed down to an apples-to-apples comparison within companies, researchers found a significant gender gap exists.

The Apples-to-Oranges Gap

Every time the gender pay gap comes up, it seems we have the apples-to-oranges data and the apples-to-apples data. Apples-to-oranges data compares men’s earnings to women’s earnings without breaking down the factors at play.

The recent Catalyst data summary of Women’s Earnings And Income reports that in the U.S. in 2014, women earned 79% as much as men in annual earnings. Based on Census data of median weekly earnings in 2015, full-time working women earned 81% as much as men, but only 72% as much within full-time management, professional, and related occupations.

Data has shown that female income tends to level off around age 35-40, as gendered workplace penalties reach full swing, while male income doesn’t level until 50-55 years old. The American Association of University Women reports that “women are typically paid about 90 percent of what men are paid until around the age of 35, at which point median earnings for women start to grow much more slowly than median earnings for men. From around age 35 through retirement, women are typically paid 75 to 80 percent of what men are paid.”

This difference has a significant impact on women’s lives, resulting in an average of $10,800 less in annual earnings, or nearly a half million dollars across a career, and a dramatically lower retirement security (44% less median income) for longer-living women, which ultimately spells an economy issue.

The Apples-to-Apples Gap

In their recent survey, Glassdoor created apples-to-apples salary comparisons by factoring in “differences in education, experience, age, location, job title, industry and even company.”

In the U.S, they found an apples-to-oranges 24% pay gap, or that women earned 76% as much as men. When they controlled for age, education, and years of experience, the gap was 19%.

When they looked at the same job title at the same employer at the same location, the highly “adjusted”apples-to-apples gap was still 5.4% – women earned 94.6 cents on the dollar of her male peer sitting next to her.

For a full-time working woman at median earnings, that’s a $2,140 loss per year. But for a woman who earns $100,000 a year, the loss is $5,400 annually.

The “adjusted gap”also increased with age – 6.2% at 35-44 years old, 9.5% at 45-54 years old, and 10.5% at 55-64 years old.

Among industries, the “adjusted”pay gap for insurance was among the biggest at 7.2% and finance was 6.4%. Among occupations, C-Suite professionals had one of the largest gender pay gaps (27.7%).

Apples-to-Oranges Is Still a Gender Bias Issue

Gender bias is still a significant driver of an apples and oranges comparison – it’s a big factor of the context that makes the difference exist at all.

According to Robert Hohman, CEO of Glassdoor, “occupational sorting”explains 54% of the overall “unadjusted”pay gap – the sorting of men and women into different industries and different roles in the economy, through non-subtle and subtle societal influences.

Education and experience were minor factors of explanation (14%). In fact, an April Gender Pay Inequality report from the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee stated, “The typical woman with a graduate degree earns $5,000 less than the typical man with a bachelor’s degree,”and that “women’s median earnings are lower at every level of education.”

Sincerity Is Transparency

The gender pay gap has been stagnant for the last decade 2006 to 2015 (change was 20 times faster in the preceding decade) and is not except to close until 2059.

Recent executive proposals by President Obama to target the gender pay gap by having the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission collect companies salary data has prompted reactions of government overreach, but the overall intention is to get targeted with a persistent problem.

As long as the persistent gender gap belongs to everyone, it belongs to nobody, and that’s why transparency matters. 70% of employees feel salary transparency is good for employee satisfaction and for business.

Certainly, a pointed finger sparks transparency, especially if it’s being pointed publicly or by shareholders, and especially if there’s nothing to hide. With the recent Glassdoor finding that female computer programmers experience one of the highest “adjusted”occupation pay gaps at 28.3%, the big names in Tech have been coming out to champion their equal pay.

On Monday, both Facebook and Microsoft announced publicly that men and women earn equally at their companies. Amazon and Apple have publicly stated similar findings based on employee pay surveys, prompted by shareholder proposals requesting disclosure of pay equity assessments, filed or co-filed by Pax World. Intel also shared their equal pay findings recently.

Now what if companies began to feel the same external pressure to disclose their C-Suite pay findings around that whopping 27.7% discrepancy?

When it comes to the gender pay gap, it seems the only real language of sincerity is indeed transparency, and companies have the chance now to use it.

By Aimee Hansen

/by

Are Investors the key to increasing the number of women leaders?

, ,

Elegant leaderThere are many ways to create change and arguably one of the most effective ways to get people on board with any concept, including gender equality, is to show them that doing the right thing can also be the most profitable path also.

For nine years theglasshammer has reported on the stagnant numbers of women on boards and in senior management. Yet there is an ever growing body of research the latest of which comes from McKinsey in January 2015 that shows that companies which commit to diverse leadership are more likely to have financial returns as much as 35 percent above their national industry median.

So, why is there still a disconnect? What can give companies the carrot or the stick that they need to do better beyond fluffy aspirational goals and lip service when it comes to promoting women?

One group that can help create change are investors. State Street’s newly launched ETF index fund – the SSGA SPDR SHE Gender Diversity ETF as well as the Sallie Krawcheck endorsed fund – the PAX Ellevate Fund allows for options when as an investor you want to see companies hire and promote women into senior leadership.

So what has changed?

Simply put, there are three things that are changing the game:

Firstly, data for who is on boards and in senior management team has only been relatively newly available. BoardEX and MSCI have dedicated teams to produce independent data on the gender breakdown of large companies’ executive teams.

Secondly, the continued bifurcation of the market is providing more choice for investors. ETFs and other passively managed and more commoditized products are in direct conjunction with more actively managed fund approaches and is certainly driving down costs and increasing transparency.

Thirdly, investors want to live their values and are more aware of what their values are

We aren’t just talking about a handful of aware women putting a few dollars into their pension plan. The California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) announced its initial investment of $250 million in the SSGA Gender Diversity Index, a large- cap U.S. stock index primarily tilted toward companies with a greater than usual number of women in senior leadership positions.

CalSTRS Chief Investment Officer Christopher J. Ailman. “We are entering a new era of impact investing — one based on looking for values or purpose that generate investment returns based on diversity of thoughts and perspectives, while also creating change with our capital. I believe it’s time to change the face of Wall Street and corporate America.”

What is the SHE index?

The SHE index itself is an index which is based on a methodology involving measuring the number of women at senior management levels in the largest firms.
The resulting product is an ETF that tracks a newly created, proprietary gender diversity index comprised of the largest companies in the US with senior women leaders relative to other firms within their sector. Rather than wait for companies to take action themselves or rely on legislation to be enacted, SHE provides a way for people to fight the gender gap directly by investing in companies that put a premium on women in leadership positions.

Jennifer Bender, Managing Director and creator of the SHE index explained to theglasshammer.com that prior to launching this ETF product, Statestreet has been working with rule based large data sets on the institutional side of the business. She comments that it seemed like a natural transition to provide retail investors with the same ability. She comments,

“If investors want to vote with their feet plus get the long term equity return they are looking for then this product allows them to do this.”

When asked about how the companies are picked for the index, Jenn Bender explains that top firms are picked to meet specific criteria using independent research. She explains,

“We want the index to be sector constrained so that we have similar sector weights as the US large cap universe which ensures we have a diverse group of industries represented. The companies in our index have the highest ratios of female senior managers in their sector. “

Walking the talk

Allison Quirk, executive vice president and chief human resources and citizenship officerat State Street believes that it is another way to tackle gender equality work.

When asked about the new SHE index, she sees the importance of reflecting the work State Street continues to do the inside to create that pipeline of female leaders with an external commercial product that aligns with the State Street culture. She comments,

“It is good for business to ensure women have what they need to navigate – it is our responsibility to engage the entire talent pool to ensure a sustainable pipeline of female leaders. We have eighteen female EVPs now who each sponsor other women just below them, this effort along with our male colleagues taking the lead also on mentoring and sponsoring women, means that we really believe we will see the rewards of paying it forward. “

With 27% of their SVP’s and 23% of their EVP’s being women, it seems that this firm is taking gender parity seriously.

State Street’s SHE fund also has an innovative charitable component to it that focuses on the next generation of women leaders. The company will take a portion of revenues and direct them to the newly created Donor Advised Fund, which will in turn support organizations that inspire and equip girls to be future business leaders – particularly in industries where women have low representation today, such as STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math).

Pipeline at all levels is what more firms need to think about.

/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

Narrow the Hidden Executive Pay Gap Starting Now

, , ,

Woman-on-a-ladder-searchingWomen reaching for the top rungs of the executive ladder will want to watch for the hidden pay gap. As Bloomberg writes, “Even top female workers can’t catch a break when it comes to pay inequality.”

As women move to senior ranks, the gender pay gap widens. Your best career management play? Begin closing it now.

A March 2015 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New Yorkprovides insight into the hidden pay gap between top male and female executives. Based upon 1992-2005 S&P’s Execucomp data, it covers executive compensation in the S&P 500, the S&P Midcap 400, and the S&P SmallCap 600. The research focused on Chair/CEOs, Vice Chairs, Presidents, CFOs and COOs.

Less Incentive Pay

The researchers found 93% of the pay gap between male and female executives is due to disparate incentive pay – bonuses, stocks granted, and stock options.

Accumulating year upon year into “firm-specific wealth”, incentive pay encourages executives to elevate corporate performance. But the study found overall women executives reaped less of it. Pay disparities held true even when age, title, tenure and firm size were controlled for.

Pay Less Sensitive to Performance

The value of incentive pay such as stock options rises and falls with the company’s performance, but leading a firm to equal strong performance pays off more for men.

Researchers found that a $1 million increase in firm value increases firm specific wealth for a male executive by $17,150 but only $1,670 for a female executive (<10%), since, as

Bloomberg notes,women’s “incentive compensation tied to the company’s equity tends to be lower.”

Pay More Exposed to Under-Performance

Researchers found that pay sensitivity goes in the oppositedirection when firms under-perform: “Overall, changes in firm performance penalize female executives while they favor male executives.”

A one percent increase in firm value creates only a 13% increase in firm specific wealth for a female executive, but a 44% increase for a male executive.

But a one percent decline in value creates a 63% decline in firm-specific wealth for a woman executive, and only a 33% hit for a man. A female executive’s incentive pay is hit twice as hard for firm under-performance.

The researchers found no differences in firm performance by gender to explain pay disparities.

As Fivethirtyeight writes, “Male CEOS get bonuses; female CEOS get blame.”

Less Influence On Pay?

The researchers theorize that men hold more insider purse strings, such as greater influence with Board Members and influence on their compensation.

CFOsummarizes the authors speculation stating the gender gap “does not reflect executive performance but ‘different degrees of managerial power of female and male executives,’ with women ‘less entrenched’, than men and exerting less control over their compensation due to limited access to informal networks, gender stereotyping, and an inhospitable corporate culture, along with their younger age and lower tenure.”

Bloomberg writes, “Men, on the other hand, who are more entrenched in an organization and can cash in favors after years in the industry, are more likely to be able to steer their pay in a way that’s more favorable for them.”

Change Means Transparency

Compensation would not remain one of the hidden, insidious biases still alive in the old boy’s club if met with disclosure.

The researchers call for greater transparency.

They write, “Our analysis suggest that performance pay schemes should be held to closer scrutiny and raises a note of concern for the standing of professional women in the labor market as incentive pay becomes more prevalent.”

Co-author Stefania Albanesi told Bloomberg, “increasing transparency in general in an organization but specifically with how your pay is set relative to others in similar positions is going to be helpful.”

Albanesi notes that it’s important to get transparency sooner. The gap doesn’t magically appear at executive level – it compounds. As incentive pay popularizes at lower ranks, disparities will build annually so inequality has to be addressed early.

“The accumulation is going to be there even when women get promoted, and also possibly if you move to another firm, because usually your past compensation is used in some degree,” Albanesi said. “These differences can be very, very persistent.”

Brave the Discussion

Women can’t afford to keep quiet about pay.

The systemic gap is unlikely to change as long as having children results in a cascading impact on salaries and opportunities for women. Increasing pressure to offer temporal flexibility and returner programs is essential.

But at an individual level, you can push for transparency and initiate the conversation of negotiating your compensation.

As Business Insider points out, women may face a “social cost” of negotiating salary but they can’t afford not to negotiate. Settling early compounds to highly significant salary differences later in your career.

According to Forbes, in a study for her book Women Don’t Ask, Stanford’s Margaret A. Neale found only seven percent of women MBAs negotiated their job offer salary compared to 57% of men MBAs.

Neale explains that if one person negotiates a $7,000 rise on a $100,000 offer and another settles, then 35 years later that $7,000 gap equates to a difference of eight working years to accumulate the same wealth, and that’s if both people experience identical raises and promotions in their career.

When women don’t negotiate, they affirm the pay gap status quo. Strategic salary negotiation is a career and gender equality move.

Let’s bring the pay gap out of the entrenched corner (offices) it hides in and put it on the table.

/by