By Robin Madell (San Francisco)
Do women unintentionally hold themselves back in their careers? The question has been up for debate for years, with leadership experts identifying self-defeating or self-limiting actions as the “sticky floor.”
Author Rebecca Shambaugh said in her 2007 book It’s Not a Glass Ceiling—It’s a Sticky Floor:
“I see women holding themselves back more than society ever could. And they usually do it to themselves quite unknowingly. When I see women capable of executive suite leadership mired in middle management, I don’t look for the glass ceiling anymore. Instead, I look for a sticky floor.”
The sticky floor phenomenon has been variously described as women’s self-imposed career blocks, corporate barriers to women’s promotion, and other middle-management bottlenecks that keep women stuck near the bottom half of the ladder. Not surprisingly, research has shown that the promotion rates for all levels of white men throughout their careers were higher than white and minority women. A large-scale study of more than 22,000 employees revealed that white men were 4.5 percentage points more likely to be promoted at any level than white women, and 16.1 percentage points more likely than minority women.
Yet, many experts take issue with the suggestion that women should be held responsible for their own failure to advance. “Saying women are responsible for holding themselves back lets off the hook the boy’s club of corporate executives who make them crazy, only to point their fingers and say, ‘See? That’s why we can’t promote them,’” says Mitchell D. Weiss, an adjunct professor of finance at the University of Hartford’s Barney School of Business.
Kathy Noecker, a member of the executive committee and management board of law firm Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, describes the sticky floor as a “both-and” situation. “I have seen many women not seek the next big case, take on a key role with an important client, or assume a leadership opportunity because of the sticky floor phenomenon,” says Noecker. “They may be fearful of failure, presume they can’t handle the time commitments, or simply be unaware that they should be advocating for themselves and their careers.” However, she adds that these situations may be closely intertwined with the glass ceiling issue: “Often, organizations favor, and women only see, a ‘male’ model of success.”
Regardless of which side of the debate you fall on, the same questions remain: why does the sticky floor still exist, and what can we do about it? The Glass Hammer spoke with Shambaugh and other experts about what actions women should take if they find themselves glued to a sticky floor, and what companies can do to facilitate women’s corporate ascent.
Three Reasons the UK is Facing a Big Slow-Down for Women on Boards
Managing ChangeSix months ago, FTSE 100 and 250 companies were being commended on their efforts to bring more women into the boardroom. The first half of 2012 saw a big uptick in hiring women to director roles, with 44 percent of new board appointments in the FTSE 100 going to women. The FTSE 250 wasn’t far behind, with 36 percent of appointments going to women.
But toward the middle of last year, female board appointments dropped off abruptly, and now only 26 percent and 29 percent of board seats are going to women in the FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 respectively. Why the slow-down is occurring now is up for debate. But the Cranfield School of Management’s latest report [PDF] – “False Dawn of Progress for Women on Boards” – suggests a few potential causes.
In their introductory letter to the report, Rt Hon Maria Miller MP, Secretary of State for Culture, Media, and Sport & Minister for Women and Equalities, and Rt Hon Vince Cable MP, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills write that UK companies should maintain a strong their commitment to top-level gender diversity. “Our top companies need to continue to demonstrate that within this competitive, global economy, boards that have a better gender balance are able to make better decisions which can only lead to better performance. This can only be beneficial for individuals, for companies and for the economy as a whole.”
By identifying underlying causes of the slowdown, companies can develop new best practices around identifying stronger female board candidates and building a solid pipeline of talent to the executive suite and beyond.
Read more
Voice of Experience: Anjun Zhou, PhD, Managing Director and Head of Multi-Asset Research, Mellon Capital
Voices of ExperienceAccording to Anjun Zhou, PhD, Managing Director and Head of Mutli-Asset Research at Mellon Capital, it’s important to maintain your drive for advancement. “There’s no such thing as staying where you are,” she said.
“There are people at my level who just stop pushing themselves. They say, ‘I’ve reached this point. I’m good enough.’ But if you stop continuing to improve yourself and pushing the envelope, it would do a disservice to you and your company.”
Zhou continued, “I often use the analogy of paddling upstream. If you’re not moving forward, you’re going backward. Don’t be complacent about where you are – always be competitive. This is particularly imperative for research and development. We need to be constantly innovative and think outside box; otherwise we are just going to be left behind.”
Read more
New Study Identifies Three Strategies for “Having It All”
Work-LifeAccording to a new working paper out of the Yale School of Management, women employ various different strategies in the effort to achieve a full work and family life, or as the saying goes, “have it all.”
The paper follows the lives of 40 women, and through her analysis of in-depth biographical interviews on their work and personal life, the researcher, Connie Gersick, identified three broad categories in how these women approached the question, “Can I have it all?”
The women, all born between 1945 and 1955, were among the first generation of women to enter the workforce in large numbers. Gersick says this is important in that they had precious few role models on how managing work and personal commitments is supposed to work. They had to develop their own strategies based on their personal priorities and motivations. She explains, “A generation of young women were challenged to reconcile traditional responsibilities and taboos with vast new opportunities. They did not know how or whether they could make it work. Their task was no less than to re-invent adult womanhood.”
Based on her interviews, Gersick identified three strategies the women employed – many of them switched strategies over the course of their lives to what worked best for them. Here’s what she discovered. Which strategy best reflects your own?
Read more
The Opt-Out Conversation Grows More Complex
Work-LifeProponents of the opt-out phenomenon suggest that the dearth of women at the top of corporations is due to women leaving the workforce in favor of personal or family responsibilities. But economic studies have been unable to show any statistically significant evidence of opting out. To this point, opting out has been more of a rumor or an anecdote.
But new Vanderbilt research has identified a subset of women that is more likely to leave the workforce. According to the new study, women who graduated from elite universities are more likely to opt out than college educated women whose universities were not in the top tier. Author Joni Hersch, Professor of Law and Economics at Vanderbilt Law School, explained that she was initially surprised at the findings.
“More than anything, the reason I could detect statistical significance is because the effect was so strong. It was surprising that it was so strong, and it cut across degree levels.” In fact, it was strongest in women with MBAs.
Hersch analyzed an enormous sample – the 2003 National Survey of College Graduates – which contained detailed information for more than 100,000 college grads. She found that 78 percent of women who graduated from the most selective colleges were employed, compared to the 84 percent of women who graduated from other colleges and were employed.
Similarly, 68 percent of mothers who graduated from elite colleges were employed, compared with 76 percent of mothers who graduated from less selective institutions and were employed.
You wouldn’t expect women from elite colleges to leave the workforce. Graduates from these types of institutions are more likely to marry later, earn graduate degrees, and make more money over their lifetimes. All of these factors are likely to increase the rate at which people stay in their jobs. But in the case of women from top colleges, that wasn’t so.
Read more
Movers and Shakers: Siani Pearson, Senior Researcher, HP Labs Bristol
Movers and ShakersSiani Pearson, now a principal research scientist at HP Labs Bristol, says she wishes she had had more confidence in herself when she was first starting her career. “I think I’d have been pleased to know I’d get as far as I have,” she explained. “Sometimes when you’re young, you question yourself. ‘Am I going to be successful? Am I going to make it?’”
Now 20 years into her career, over 100 papers and 60 patents later, she continued, “But if you continue pushing yourself, you will work at high levels. You never know if you’re going to like upper level work, and it is stressful. But it’s worth it.”
One of the reasons she has succeeded in her career, Pearson theorized, may be her dissatisfaction with the status quo – and she encouraged young professional women to continue setting the bar higher for themselves. “The more I did, the more I tried to reset my expectations for myself. I’ve never been satisfied.”
Read more
The ‘Sticky Floor’ Revisited
Next LevelDo women unintentionally hold themselves back in their careers? The question has been up for debate for years, with leadership experts identifying self-defeating or self-limiting actions as the “sticky floor.”
Author Rebecca Shambaugh said in her 2007 book It’s Not a Glass Ceiling—It’s a Sticky Floor:
The sticky floor phenomenon has been variously described as women’s self-imposed career blocks, corporate barriers to women’s promotion, and other middle-management bottlenecks that keep women stuck near the bottom half of the ladder. Not surprisingly, research has shown that the promotion rates for all levels of white men throughout their careers were higher than white and minority women. A large-scale study of more than 22,000 employees revealed that white men were 4.5 percentage points more likely to be promoted at any level than white women, and 16.1 percentage points more likely than minority women.
Yet, many experts take issue with the suggestion that women should be held responsible for their own failure to advance. “Saying women are responsible for holding themselves back lets off the hook the boy’s club of corporate executives who make them crazy, only to point their fingers and say, ‘See? That’s why we can’t promote them,’” says Mitchell D. Weiss, an adjunct professor of finance at the University of Hartford’s Barney School of Business.
Kathy Noecker, a member of the executive committee and management board of law firm Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, describes the sticky floor as a “both-and” situation. “I have seen many women not seek the next big case, take on a key role with an important client, or assume a leadership opportunity because of the sticky floor phenomenon,” says Noecker. “They may be fearful of failure, presume they can’t handle the time commitments, or simply be unaware that they should be advocating for themselves and their careers.” However, she adds that these situations may be closely intertwined with the glass ceiling issue: “Often, organizations favor, and women only see, a ‘male’ model of success.”
Regardless of which side of the debate you fall on, the same questions remain: why does the sticky floor still exist, and what can we do about it? The Glass Hammer spoke with Shambaugh and other experts about what actions women should take if they find themselves glued to a sticky floor, and what companies can do to facilitate women’s corporate ascent.
Read more
Why Tomorrow’s CEO Will Be a Feminist
Managing ChangeToday women and men are more likely than ever before to identify themselves as feminists – and that’s despite relentless attacks on the movement by media personalities, politicians, and pundits. In fact, according to a recent survey of people who voted in the 2012 election, 55 percent of women voters said they were feminists. That’s the highest percentage ever, having increased nine points in just four years.
The survey, conducted by Lake Research Partners for Ms. Magazine, the Feminist Majority Foundation, and the Communications Consortium Media Center, turned up even higher numbers when respondents were supplied a definition of a feminist: “someone who supports political, economic, and social equality for women.” After reading the definition, 68 percent of women described themselves as feminists.
Women under thirty were the most likely to call themselves feminists – after reading the definition, almost three quarters (73 percent) said so. Kathy Spillar, executive vice president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, said this means that not only is the electorate changing, but so is the workforce. Employers will have to keep up.
“It shows the popularity of the movement. And it’s a growing movement. Many young women self-identify as feminists despite the constant beating up of the term. Despite that, we have a solid majority – a supermajority. These women are very strong believers about equality, and they’re going to be gaining more momentum as time goes on.”
“For corporate leadership, they have got to be thinking about this,” Spillar added.
Read more
Why Less Can Be More for Women Execs
Work-LifeWith Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead topping the bestseller chart, the “double-down” debate has been reignited once again. Whether you find yourself for or against the ideas that Sandberg proposes, one thing that’s clear is that her controversial book has gotten people talking about why women’s progress in leadership roles has stalled, and the choices that we each must confront as we try to make our lives and work make sense within our own unique circumstances.
If you haven’t read the book, you may expect from the title that Sandberg falls squarely in the corner of doing more in all arenas at all costs. That’s not the case, as she explains in her chapter “The Myth of Doing It All,” where she states:
Can less be more for women execs, and if so, when and how? The Glass Hammer spoke with a panel of experts in diverse industries about how to back off as needed.
Read more
Michelle Meyer, Senior U.S. Economist, Bank of America Merrill Lynch
35 Under 35Meyer, who was voted one of Forbes’ “30 Under 30 in Finance” and also appears as an expert commentator on CNBC and Bloomberg, said putting herself in the spotlight was initially terrifying. “When I first started doing media, I was petrified,” she said. “It scared me immensely, not only representing myself, but also the firm. But I pushed myself and it has been one of the best things for my career.”
“When an opportunity presents itself that is challenging, uncomfortable, intimidating, or it makes you want to hide under the table, that’s just the opportunity you should take,” she added with a laugh.
Read more
When to Use Your Head and When to Use Your Heart in Negotiation
Office PoliticsThere are many different styles of negotiation, and to get the best outcome it’s important to examine the stakes and the situation. A new study purports to show when you should put yourself in someone else’s shoes, and when it’s best to focus on feelings in negotiation settings.
The paper, entitled “When to use your head and when to use your heart: The differential value of perspective-taking versus empathy in competitive interactions” and published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin earlier this year, suggests how two different ways of “imagining others’ experience” – one cognitive and one emotional – can enable best outcomes in specific types of negotiation scenarios. The authors write:
At first, these strategies – and yes, empathy is a strategy here – don’t seem all that different. But the authors, Debra Gilin, Department of Psychology, Saint Mary’s University, William W. Maddux, INSEAD, Jordan Carpenter, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, and Adam D. Galinsky, Northwestern University, explain that one is about the head and the other is about the heart.
Perspective-taking (or putting yourself in someone’s shoes) means thinking about a situation from another’s viewpoint. It is a process of acknowledging your difference from someone else and trying to see how they would see. Conversely, empathy is about connection. It means seeking “one-ness” with how others and feeling how they feel. Rather than examining difference, you are focusing on similarities.
Both of these approaches have a place in negotiation, according to the research, and choosing the right one can get you the best outcome. You just have to know when to go with your heart or your head. Here’s how.
Read more