“You’re overqualified” is probably the most dreaded compliment in the history of hiring. This assertion is usually accompanied with remarks such as: “What sort of position do you really want?” or “Don’t you think this position would be a step down?” According to a Career Transitions post in Psychology Today by Katharine Brooks, Ed.D, accomplished female professionals have been turned away from lucrative opportunities because of being perceived as a hiring risk. From an employer’s perspective “overqualified” professionals are those who ‘won’t fit in, will cost too much, or won’t keep up with trends.’ Brooks explains that interviewers use this unappealing commendation to mask their apprehension and avoid hiring an employee who they feel may will “get bored and leave the job as soon as something better comes along.”
Tag Archive for: career advice
How easy is it for German woman to climb the corporate ladder in modern day Germany? Despite Germany’s reputation for cutting edge modernity, there still exists a big gap between men and women in Germany’s corporate world.
It may be surprising to learn that no other industrial nation has as few top female managers as Germany. Despite having a female Chancellor, there is a general sense that Germany today is stuck well in the past.
Only 11% of German companies have women within management positions. This is lower than the European Union average of 14% and way behind the United States and Canada who have around 40% parity. Many see Germany’s corporate culture and even German society as the biggest obstacle to German women gaining footing in the corporate world. Reinhild Engel, an equal opportunity official at the German company Schering says, “Women have to fight for lead positions. We have to change the company culture and the social culture.”
“Women have to fight for lead positions. We have to change the company culture and the social culture.”
Some say that Germany is simply stuck in the past. Gabriele Schaffran-Deutschmann, a recognized advocate for women also in Schering stated, “I think it’s true that Germany is 20 years behind.” Today’s Germany has a firmly entrenched masculine working culture. In Germany fewer women work full time than in France, Great Britain and all of the Scandinavian countries. Of those who do join the workforce, less than 4% reach positions of top management.
In politics German women are also lagging behind many of the other EU countries. Economist Ute Klammer, who led a study on German women and work which was presented to the federal government recently stated, “Most European countries have more women in leading positions.” There is a growing sense that Germany is behind its more gender progressive neighbours. Current German tax laws are also seen as responsible. Klammer also said, “If you look at West Germany in particular, there is a strong breadwinner model. There is still the idea that the man supports the family and the female works part-time, if at all.”
These systemic problems have had massive effects on the corporate world. Men still outnumber women in Germany’s boardrooms 8 to 1 despite a federal cabinet which is comprised of 40% women. According to the DIW economic think-tank, women occupy just 7 percent of executive board seats among the 30 largest companies on Germany’s blue-chip DAX index.
This problem is compounded by the lack of German women returning to work after having children. This is caused in part by the current parental leave law which states that an employer can return to the same or, an equivalent job up to 3 years after childbirth. However despite the law encouraging 98% of women back into the workforce, employers are often leery of both hiring women in the first place and of promoting them when they come back.
Hans-Olaf Henkel, the former president of the Association of German Industry says, “A very limited number of women advance after they have children. Women are more or less forced to quit in Germany.”
“A very limited number of women advance after they have children. Women are more or less forced to quit in Germany.”
These deeply entrenched gender roles are sometimes attributed to Germany’s turbulent history. A German female banking executive who refused to be identified recently stated, “After the war, so many men were lost, it was essential for women to raise their children as a duty to the Fatherland. If you left your children to others, you were a rabenmutter, a bad mother, like the raven bird pushing her little ones out of the nest.” Barbara Schaeffer-Hegel, founder of the European Academy for Women in Politics and Business stated, “The mother ideology of the Third Reich and the conservative women’s’ politics in the postwar time have left deep marks. The division of the areas of public and private were cemented with the exclusive responsibility of women for the private areas– caring for children and ensuring the welfare of the family.”
These cultural inclinations toward raising one’s own children singlehandedly have left their mark on Germany’s daycare systems. These factors make companies even more wary of promoting women. “It’s a lot harder to reconcile having a family and a career in Germany than it is in most developing countries and almost all industrial nations,” says Schaeffer-Hegel.
The present reality and the future progress
But there are signs that things are getting better for Germany’s corporate women. According to Fidar, a German initiative which promotes female managers, women held 11.1% of positions in executive and supervisory boards in 2013. This is a huge 4.6% jump from 2011. But while this is impressive, Fidar was quick to express that much more work needs to be done. Fidar president Monika Schulz-Strelow said, “It is not enough to bring one woman into the supervisory board. In order for things to change, several women must be in leadership positions of a company.” Fidar states that for actual change to occur and remain so, at least 20-25% of German management positions must be filled by women.
In 2014 the figure for women in supervisory positions rose to 16.2% causing great fanfare in the German media. However what was less promising is the mere 5.9% of women in executive boards. This figure rose just 3.4% from 2013. Schulz-Strelow went on to state, “Nearly a quarter of Dax companies are completely free of women in their leadership. The realization is spreading that having women in the executive and supervisory boards is very good for a company. Yet despite this, companies which simply bring one woman into a leadership position but do not change the culture will simply lose those women again.”
In order to avoid this, Chancellor Merkel and the German government have suggested installing female quotas for German corporate positions. These quotas are being taken very seriously by the media and during policy debates. Merkel has promised that from 2016 on, women must hold at least 30 percent of corporate board positions in some of Germany’s biggest listed companies. And while the debate for and against these quotas is still in heated progress, there is at least consolation in the fact that the argument exists at all.
By Ben Rozon
On both sides of the Atlantic, middle aged women have disproportionately suffered job loss in the years since the great recession began in 2008. Back in 2012, The Guardian reported on data from the UK’s Office for National Statistics and told us that “unemployment among women aged 50 to 64 has risen by 39% in the last two years, compared with an overall rise of 5% among over-16s.” A recent article in the New York Times, based on information from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, tells another troubling story: “Since the start of the recession, the number of working women 45 to 54 has dropped more than 3.5 percent.”
In the UK, the dramatic increase in unemployment and decrease in labor force participation in women over 50 is being attributed to two factors: downsizing in the public sector and elder care. In the US, it is assumed that middle aged women are dropping out of the workforce mostly to care for their aging parents. Elder care is a very real issue, but it isn’t the only one. Since this trend accelerated during the recession, there must have been important factors related to the economic downturn, as well. Have late-career women continued to drop—or be pushed—out of the labor force in the new economy, and what is going on beneath the surface?
Following Up
The UK Since 2012
According to 2014 data from the Office for National Statistics in the UK, the unemployment rate for women between 50 and 64 has decreased by 12% since that 2012 article was written, however, the decrease in unemployment for men in the same age range has been much higher: 31%. Based on data from the same source, it appears that British women in the last third of their careers were still struggling in 2014. It is likely that the decrease in the number of public sector jobs, where British women are overrepresented, has indeed played an important role in this. It seems that unemployed women who previously worked for the government may be having trouble finding new jobs.
The US in Perspective
The US statistics on labor force participation show that middle-aged men and women took a similar, recession-related hit. The reason why unemployment among later-career women stands out is because it’s in contrast to much more static levels of employment among younger women. In the US, the recession hit men aged 20 to 34 harder than women in the same age range, but mature women were hit as hard or harder than men of the same age. Since young women tend to be the lowest paid employees, this might reflect a purge of workers who have traditionally earned more: men and higher level employees of both sexes. It’s also related to the fact that young men are overrepresented in construction and manufacturing, which are especially sensitive to economic troubles. That said, the diminishing role of US women in their prime earning years is a cause for concern. Most of the experienced leaders who hold top positions in business and finance are 40 and up.
Changes in Midlife
Some late-career women who have dropped out of the workforce have done so because of job loss. Others quit their jobs to care for aging parents or to change tracks. The problem is, both voluntary and involuntary job loss in the middle years can be devastating to future earning potential. The dynamics of unemployment in the last 15 or 20 years of a woman’s work life are complex and are affected by both age and gender. Since the recession, many late-career professionals who lost their jobs have been forced into lower paying and lower status work. Faced with that eventuality, some women are doubtless choosing to abandon the search for work if they can afford to. Nobody wants a reduction in status and a cut in pay.
Entrepreneurship
Perhaps some middle aged women are fed up with glass ceilings, realize that they’ll never be as successful as they’d hoped, and are leaving large corporations at the height of their careers. But are they dropping out of the labor force permanently? Some are taking the time they need to refocus and begin new projects. In the US, women are the majority of entrepreneurs and in the UK, the number of women starting their own businesses is increasing steadily. Many women who have not been handed leadership positions in larger organizations are starting their own companies, where they can take the lead much more decisively, guiding the culture and direction of an enterprise.
Frustrated in the Final Third?
There’s no denying that many women who should be at the height of their power in business and the professions—women in the final third of their work lives—are feeling frustrated, especially if they have not yet been able to meet their professional goals and are feeling stuck. However, the grass is not necessarily greener on the other side. Entrepreneurship isn’t for everyone, elder care is incredibly demanding both physically and emotionally, and simply not working? Many find that it isn’t as nice as it sounds. Family is important, but in most cases, there is a way to stay close to aging parents without sacrificing everything else.
When we’re faced with a late career challenge, there are so many answers other than dropping out or accepting defeat: transfers, job switches, entrepreneurship… and sometimes the answer is simply to call on other family members and professionals for help with aging parents, or to restructure our thinking about work after a period of unemployment.
By Deidre Miller
You can call storytelling a fine art, a talent, a method, a skill, the mark of a leader or all of the above. But what proves effective storytelling is a powerful leadership asset? Well to get technical about it, neuroscience does.
Research into the neurobiological impact of storytelling by Paul Zak shows that stories change the activity in people’s brains. Powerful character-driven stories produce neurochemicals that enhance our sense of empathy (thinking, feeling, and responding the same way as the character) and motivate us toward cooperative behavior – “stories bring brains together” and people with them.
Paul Zak recommends professionals to begin every presentation with a “compelling human-scale story.” His experiments in business settings show that emotive character-driven stories equate to better understanding and greater retention of your key speaking points weeks later. “In terms of making impact,” he writes, “this blows the standard PowerPoint presentation to bits.”
A Core Leadership Skill That Leads?
David Hutchens, author of Circle of the 9 Muses: A Storytelling Field Guide for Innovators & Meaning Makers says that leaders are “rediscovering that story is the most efficient path to creating connection, engagement, and shared meaning.”
According to Hutchens, leaders are connecting the power of stories with the ability to address pressing issues facing organizations such as capturing decisions, knowledge and wisdom after the event; engaging Millennial talent through organizational purpose; creating value; and defining individual and organizational identity.
Certainly top female executives such as Meg Whitman and Indra Nooyi leverage the power of stories in public speaking. We also recognize stories for their potential and power to make diversity personal, inspire women on pathways to leadership, and to advance gender equality.
We know stories are integral to leadership. According to researchers and consultants Stort and Nordstrom in Forbes, “Proper storytelling just might be the most impactful leadership method yet.”
And leadership communications expert Dianna Booher writes, “Storytelling makes leadership possible. A leader without the ability to tell a great story has lost the platform and power to persuade.”
Going even further, perhaps stories are leadership. Research by Parry and Hansen transcends “the notion that leaders tell stories”, and instead proposes “that stories themselves operate like leaders” or “the story becomes the leader.”
Ways Stories are Used in Everyday Leadership Situations
Stories clearly play a starring role in pivotal and powerful leadership moments. We tend to think of the big impact presentations, heroic personal tales, and big organizational stories. But storytelling is also integrated into everyday leadership situations in various ways.
Finnish researchers Auvinen, Aaltio, and Blomqvist sought out “storytelling managers” (managers who often integrate stories into leadership situations and conversations), identified by those reporting to them, to understand why they brought narration into leadership situations and how it related to trust-building.
They examined managers’ use of story or narratives and the intention behind using stories. They identified seven categories of influence that stories were used for, of which there are likely multiples more. The first two are:
Motivation – Motivating co-workers to carry out tasks, adopt behavior, or achieve goals. These stories often brought in comparison or competition and/or revealed values and attitudes as encouragement to elevate the game.
Inspiration – Inspiring a shared vision and energizing towards higher order goals. These stories often brought in faith and supremacy over competitors through a focused collective effort.
We often equate leadership storytelling with motivating and inspiring – epic stories that lay out a great quest or heroic stories that portray triumph over adversity to reach an ultimate goal.
In Forbes, Stort and Nordstrom identified four great stories leaders tell to engage people, which seem to fall mostly in these categories:
- Organizational stories which fosters connection and unite in purpose – such as the founding story or the strategic story
- Pivotal stories that illustrate big thinking or mindset shifts to overcome big challenges
- Teamwork stories which illustrate hard work, challenges to the status quo and dramatic breakthroughs
- Great work stories recognizing individual achievement and performance
They note that stories play a huge part in showing appreciation, as research has shown that among people who report the highest morale at work, 94% agreed their managers are effective at recognizing them, or telling stories about their work.
The storytelling managers also used stories for other more subtle purposes:
Prevent/defuse conflict – Making co-workers feel involved and defusing a negative atmosphere. These stories used humor or personal experiences to break the energy.
Influencing boss’s thinking – Managing up. Opening a manager’s perspective by promoting creative or new thinking. For example, conveying a changing market by telling a personal story that leads to discovery of a new insight or new reality.
Discovering a focus – Empowering co-workers to freely explore new ways of doing things, to shake up what’s not working. These stories might focus on examples of big unexpected changes or setbacks that ultimately catalyzed success or new advancements by wiping or changing the slate, blessings in disguise.
Direct trust-building – Showing empathy, identification and concern, or role-modelling. For example, cheering up a co-worker through an empathetic story of shared experience; revealing a story of personal vulnerability/failure to encourage self-trust or persistence; or sharing a personal story in which the manager has role-modelled or championed behavior they seek to identify and encourage in the team.
Dianna Booher notes in her top storytelling tips that while stories need an identifiable hero, leaders also have to be careful not to always position themselves as hero. She shares, “Audiences relate more often and learn more from ‘failure’ stories.”
Mutual trust-building – Sparking iterative trust-building storytelling. For example, first sharing a personal anecdote that demonstrates a value, or illustrates trust in and alignment with the organization, in order to encourage mutual discussion and trust.
Author and consultant Terrence L. Gargiulo writes, “The shortest distance between two people is a story.” Leaders bring in stories to close that gap and inspire greater bonding and cohesion.
While no storyteller can ever control the impact of their story, congruency between various stories a leader shares and walking the walk behind the words are both important factors for trust and credibility.
Not Just For the Big Meetings
There are countless ways to use story as a leader, countless ways to get better at storytelling, and countless resources for doing so. But above all, storytelling is accessible to all managers. Stories aren’t just what top executives pull out at the annual review meeting or when introducing the next new initiative.
Storytelling can be naturally weaved into many leadership situations. Tomorrow you might tell a story about the exceptional contribution of one team member, the strategic insight that dawned on you in the most unlikely of contexts, or that devastating failure that was a huge gift only in retrospect.
Sometimes, the shortest distance between you and a moment of defining leadership might just be a story.
By Aimee Hansen
Your professional bio is often the first impression you make when it comes to your executive presence. So how do you get the words right, before you even speak a word?
“Your bio is a strategic play and should be treated as such. A bio can help you get hired, gain visibility, and win you serious respect,” writes Meredith Fineman in the Harvard Business Review, advising from her work on personal branding.
Here’s insight into how you can overcome mistakes that undermine the impact of professional bios and achieve executive presence with yours.
AVOIDING COMMON MISTAKES
Be Consistent Across Platforms
Look at every place your bio appears as a potential touchpoint for elevating your profile and career, and make it the same message. Fineman finds that a big mistake is lack of consistency across platforms. She writes, “If a journalist or recruiter cannot figure out who you are in under 30 seconds (because you have six different bios in six different places), you’ve lost your chance.”
Fineman recommends that everyone have a consistent two-line bio, short bio, and long bio. When it comes to the short versions, she advises to find the 15-second version of yourself professionally, “Think of it as trying to give your bio as an elevator pitch.”
Keep It Fresh
If you’re not updating your bio every six months, then you’re at risk of letting it go stale. Even if your position stays the same, you can reflect new achievements or experiences you’ve collected. Fineman recommends to set a calender reminder.
Use Your Last Name
It sounds more professional and carries more gravitas than your first name when linked to accomplishments.
Use Active Voice & Verbs
Research has identified significant differences between how men and women talk about their career accomplishments (women tend to understate them), and suggests that women can enhance their executive presence by ensuring confident expression about their accomplishments. The bio is an opportunity to do this in writing.
Fineman writes, “When someone has used the passive voice in their bio, it always feels to me like they’re trying to downplay their achievements. The point of your bio is to emphasize your achievements.”
She recommends to eliminate soft language like “trying to” or “attempting to” when speaking about current efforts. “That makes it sound like you’ve already failed. Remove it. You are not attempting to do it, you are doing it.”
Include Selective Achievements & Expand on Them
Your bio is an opportunity to choose your strongest achievements, purposefully include them, and convey what’s so compelling about them. Fineman argues you can’t do that with a list.
Being selective about achievements you include and put meat on them, while drawing in passions. Fineman advises, “This is a professional bio, so while you can include your hobbies, choose carefully and be straightforward rather than coy.”
Include Links To Outcomes & Actions
Treat your bio as a showcase for your work, and make it easily accessible – press releases about awards, pieces you’ve written, published results of your work, visible outcomes. Equally if there’s a call-to-action possibility, such as booking you to speak at an event, link it.
GOING FURTHER – CREATING EXECUTIVE PRESENCE
Beyond getting basics right, your bio is an opportunity to convey your executive presence. This may be especially important for women because executive presence is in the eye of the beholder and it’s more likely to be conferred upon men.
In an article entitled Executive and Board Candidate Bios: Executive Presence on Display, Paula Aisnof, Principal & Founder of Yellow Brick Path, shares perspective on how you can.
Try asking these questions.
Could I change the name & mistake it for somebody else?
Aisnof comments that most corporate bios are highly undifferentiated, providing little insight into the person behind the words, “Change the names and locations and those bios could be about 80% of executives.”
A good way to avoid this is to immerse yourself into creating your bio, whether you’re writing it. When leaders hands-off delegate their bio, they delegate their personal brand. Aisnof writes,“One reason for the overwhelmingly blandness is that bios are frequently written by third parties who do not necessarily understand the executive’s story or the targeted audience.”
If you want your bio to be involving, get involved with it.
Does it tell a story that builds my executive presence?
“Whether used for business purposes, for advancing an executive’s visibility through professional or community activities, or for job search,” writes Aisnof, “executives these days must reach beyond being a commodity in an overcrowded market of similarly accomplished peers.”
Her advice is that bios need to have a story that “entices the reader to want to get to know the executive personally and understand his or her unique talents and value.”
Harness the persuasive power of storytelling for your personal brand. This doesn’t mean turning your bio into a mini-novel or downgrading its professionalism. It means ensuring your bio reflects an engaging narrative of how your achievements, experience, and journey reflect your unique talents and value. Does it tell a story about how you’re a thought leader? Strategic foresight and execution has been identified as one of the seven skills you need to thrive in the C-suite.
Does the first paragraph bring me to life as an executive?
Aisnof advices, “The bio should immediately and accurately create a picture of the person being described, portray a person with distinguishing capabilities and qualities, and communicate the subject’s level of authority, responsibility, and expertise.”
Do you know what motivates you, what makes you excellent at what you do, why people like to work with you, and what others say about you? Aisnof has previously found that an executive brand comes down to “essense factor – who they are”, “guru factor – what they know”, and “star factor – what they do and how they do it.”
Have I given compelling and differentiating specifics?
Emphasize specifics, not generics. Don’t highlight “leadership skills”. Instead, demonstrate what makes you a remarkable leader.
“It is the specifics that set the executive apart from other great leaders and outstanding communicators,” writes Aisnof. In the best bios, the reader will come to the conclusion that the executive is exceptional based on the information presented rather than being told by the executive that he or she is great.”
The same goes for accomplishments. Aisnof urges, “These should be earthshaking, company-saving, award winning events supported by quantitative results where possible and be related to the interests of the targeted audience,” without disclosing sensitive corporate or client information.
Is this a board candidate bio?
If so, then Aisnof recommends including: any boards – including non-profit on which you already have served; reflecting any corporate, civic, or charitable-focused leadership roles that demonstrate ability to guide an organization; any awards especially outside your company that have recognized your accomplishments; and any media coverage, publications, or speaking appearances. Ask from the selection committee perspective: “What is the most important and differentiating contribution the executive would be making to the group?”
When embraced, managing your bio can be part of strategically managing your career advancement.
By Aimee Hansen
How 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
You 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.
Do 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
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.
This 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.”
Recently, 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)